11. CulTural Heritage
impact assessment
11.1 Scope and Assessment Area
11.2 Environmental Legislation, Standards and
Criteria
11.3 Assessment Methodology for the CHIA
11.4 Background of the Assessment Area
11.5 Archaeological Background
11.6 Marine
Archaeology Background
11.10 Environmental Monitoring and Audit
List of Tables
Table 11.1 Summary
of Built Heritage and Other Identified Items within 300m of Project Boundary
List of Figures
Figure 11.1 Geological
Map of the Project and Assessment Area
Figure 11.2 Locations
of Built Heritage and Other Identified Items (Key
Plan)
Figure 11.3 Built
Heritage and Other Identified Items on Tang Lung Chau
Figure 11.4 Built
Heritage and Other Identified Items at North Lantau
Figure 11.5 Areas
with Archaeological Potential Identified in the Feasibility Stage
List of Appendices
Appendix
11.1 Aerial Photos, Map and Photos
Appendix
11.2 Built Heritage and Other
Identified Items Recording Sheet
Appendix
11.3 Marine Archaeology
Baseline Information
Appendix
11.4 Marine Archaeological
Investigation Report
11.1.1.1 This section presents the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) for the construction and operation of the Project. In accordance with Section 5(7)(a) of the EIA Ordinance and the EIA Study Brief (No. ESB-359/2023), this Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) includes a Built Heritage Impact Assessment (BHIA), an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) and a Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI). Appropriate mitigation measures are recommended as necessary.
11.1.1.2 The assessment area for the CHIA shall be defined by 300m from the boundary of the Project boundary.
11.2.1.1
Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria relevant to the
consideration of Cultural Heritage impact of the Project include:
·
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap.
499);
·
Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact
Assessment Process (EIAO -TM) Annexes 10 and 19;
·
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (A&MO) (Cap.
53); and
·
Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation
(Guidelines for MAI).
EIAO
and Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM
11.2.1.2 The EIAO was implemented on 1 April 1998. It aims to avoid, minimise, and control the adverse impacts on the environment of designated projects, through the EIA process and the Environmental Permit (EP) system.
11.2.1.3 According to the EIAO, site of cultural heritage refers to an antiquity or monument, whether being a place, building, site or structure or a relic, as defined in the A&MO (Cap. 53) and any place, building, site, or structure or a relic identified by the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) to be of archaeological, historical or palaeontological significance.[1]
11.2.1.4 Annexes 10 and 19 of EIAO-TM provide general criteria and guidelines for evaluating the impacts to sites of cultural heritage. It is stated in Annex 10 that all adverse impacts to sites of cultural heritage shall be kept to an absolute minimum and that the general presumption of impact assessment shall be in favour of the protection and conservation of all sites of cultural heritage. Annex 19 provides the scope and methodology for undertaking the CHIA, including baseline study, impact assessment and mitigation measures.
A&MO (Cap.53)
11.2.1.5 The Ordinance provides the statutory framework for preservation of objects of historical, archaeological and paleontological interest and for matters ancillary thereto or connected therewith. The Ordinance contains the statutory procedures for the Declaration of Monuments. Under the Ordinance, a monument means a place, building, site or structure which is declared to be a monument, historical building or archaeological or paleontological site or structure under Section 3 of the Ordinance. Excavations carried out on building works, demolition and interference of a proposed monument or monument are prohibited except under permit under Section 6 of the Ordinance.
Guidelines for MAI
11.2.1.6 A Guidelines for MAI is provided in Appendix J-1 of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-359/2023 for the Project. The Guidelines for MAI provides instructions on the standard practice, methodologies and procedures that should be adopted when determining the marine archaeological potential and presence of archaeological artefacts.
11.2.1.7 The guidelines state that the standard practice for MAI consists of four separate tasks, i.e. (1) Baseline Review, (2) Geophysical Survey, (3) Establishing Archaeological Potential and (4) Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV)/Visual Diver Survey/Watching Brief. Tasks 1 and 2 would collect the information required to facilitate the analysis and evaluation in Task 3, and the outcome of the three tasks would help determine if Task 4 should be undertaken and its strategy for further investigation.
BHIA
11.3.1.1
A desktop review was conducted to identify any known and unknown built
heritage within 300m assessment area based on the examination of the following
resources:
·
List of Proposed and Declared Monuments as issued by
the AMO[2];
·
List of the 1,444 Historic Buildings[3]
and List of New Items for Grading Assessment[4] by
the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB);
·
Government Historic Sites Identified by AMO[5];
·
Previous related EIA studies, publications and
monographs on relevant historical and geographical issues;
·
Unpublished archival papers and records, and
collection and libraries of tertiary institutions; and
·
Geological and historical maps, aerial photos and
relevant visual archives.
11.3.1.2 Site visits were conducted on 15 August, 25 August, 27 October and 8 December 2023 to evaluate the current condition of the built heritage and identify any additional items that have not been covered by the desktop review.
11.3.1.3 The potential direct and indirect impacts that may affect the built heritage during the construction and operational phases are assessed in this chapter by following the procedures and requirements of Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM.
11.3.1.4 Mitigation measures are proposed in this chapter for all affected built heritage to minimise any adverse impacts when necessary.
AIA
11.3.1.5
A desktop review was conducted to identify any potential existence of
archaeological heritage within the 300m assessment area based on the
examination of the following resources:
·
List of Site of Archaeological Interest[6]
identified by the AMO;
·
Previous related EIA studies and archaeological reports;
·
Related publications and monographs on relevant
archaeological, historical and geographical issues;
·
Unpublished archival papers and records, and
collection and libraries of tertiary institutions; and
·
Geological and historical maps, aerial photos and
relevant visual archives.
11.3.1.6 The potential impacts that may affect the possible archaeological heritage during the construction and operational phases will be assessed in the CHIA by following the procedures and requirements of Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM.
11.3.1.7
In case adverse impacts on archaeological
heritage cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation measures would be designed
and recommended in the CHIA to minimise the impacts.
MAI
11.3.1.8
A desktop review was conducted to identify any potential existence of
underwater archaeological heritage based on the examination of the following
resources:
·
Previous related geophysical surveys and MAI studies;
·
Admiralty charts;
·
Records of shipwrecks and dredging;
·
Marine Disposal Areas and Borrow Areas[7];
·
Geological and historical maps, aerial photos and
relevant visual archives; and
·
Related publications and monographs on relevant
archaeological, historical and geographical issues.
11.3.1.9
Geophysical surveys were completed on 29 July 2022 (under Agreement No. CE50/2020 (HY) Feasibility Review of Tsing Yi - Lantau
Link Feasibility Study) and 20 October 2023 (under this Agreement) to confirm the
archaeological potential and significance of the assessment area. Then, a Report Establishing Marine
Archaeological Potential and a Diver Survey Proposal were submitted to AMO
for review and comment on 30 May and 22 May 2024, respectively. Both of the aforesaid deliverables were
prepared by a licenced marine archaeologist.
AMO had no comment on the Diver Survey Proposal and Report
Establishing Marine Archaeological Potential on 21 June 2024 and 8 October
2024, respectively. Upon the issuance of the Licence to Excavate and Search
for Antiquities, the diver survey for marine archaeological investigation of
geophysical anomalies with archaeological potential was undertaken from 28
September 2024 to 4 October 2024.
11.3.1.10 The potential impacts that may affect the possible archaeological heritage during the construction and operational phases are to be assessed in the CHIA by following the procedures and requirements of Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM. In case adverse impacts on archaeological heritage cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation measures would be designed and recommended to minimise the impacts.
11.4.1.1
The works of this Project bridge over from Tsing
Yi, Ma Wan (with the small island Tang Lung Chau to its south) to Lantau. The Project is
hovering over two marine fairways, Ma Wan Channel between Tsing Yi Island and
Ma Wan; and Kap Shui Mun between Ma Wan and Lantau Island.
11.4.1.2
The Project alignment is approximately parallel with
the current Lantau Link (completed in 1997) to its south. West Tsing Yi, South Ma Wan, Tang Lung Chau,
Kap Shui Mun and North Lantau fall into the assessment area, with the current
Lantau Link at the northern edge (refer to Figure 2.1.1).
Geography
11.4.2.1
Hong Kong is at the entrance of the Pearl River
along the South China coast. The Project
is situated southwest of the Hong Kong SAR territory, across Tsing Yi, Ma Wan
and Lantau areas. Two deep-water
channels, Ma Wan Channel and Kap Shui Mun, run between.
11.4.2.2
Lantau Island is situated at the Pearl River estuary. The water between Lantau and Tuen Mun is
called Urmston Road where it forms an inland passage to the mouth of Pearl
River. Urmston Roads eastern end meets
Ma Wan Channel to the west of Tsing Yi, and the narrower Kap Shui Mun to the
west of Ma Wan. Deep and narrow
channels between islands constrict tidal currents and increase their velocity,
this explains why Kap Shui Mun and neighbouring Ma Wan experience strong currents[8]. Furthermore, in view of the currents in the
Pearl River Estuary, marine traffic going up-river to Canton (former name of Guangzhou) must follow the
northern coast of Lantau, and then the eastern shores of the Estuary[9].
11.4.2.3
Lantau Island (148.36 km2)[10]
is the largest island at the southwest of the territory. Ma Wan Island (0.97km2)[11]
is to the northeast of the Lantau and west of Tsing Yi (10.69km2)[12]. The small island of Tang Lung Chau (approx.
0.13 km2) is to the south of Ma Wan in Kap Shui Mun.
Geology
11.4.2.4
North Lantau is mainly composed of rugged
topography and forests with elevation between 100m and 200m. Many parts of the shoreline are steep and rocky. The solid geology of North Lantau mainly
consists of Mesozoic volcanic and intrusive igneous rocks. The volcanic rocks mainly comprise
tuff-breccia (Jsl) and coarse ash crystal tuff (JYT),
while the intrusive rocks mainly comprise granites (gf) and feldsparphyric
rhyolite (rf). Superficial deposits of Quaternary age, dominantly colluviums (Qd). The deposit
also constitutes the seabed in most of the shoreline (refer to Figure 11.1[13]).
11.4.2.5
South Ma Wan consists of hilly landscape and thick vegetation. The highest point is Tai Leng Tau (69m) in
the southeast[14]. The geology of the island is dominated by the
bedrocks of feldsparphyric rhyolite(rf) and coarse
ash crystal tuff (JYT) as illustrated in Figure
11.1[15]). Tang Lung Chau, to the south of Ma Wan,
geologically is dominated by coarse ash crystal tuff (JYT) with some feldsparphyric rhyolite(rf) (refer to Figure 11.1[16]).
11.4.2.6
Tsing Yi is a hilly island, with Tsing Yi Peak in the south climbs to
334m and serves as a barrier separating the industrial west and residential
east. In the northwest to west, rocks
are mainly tufts and East Lantau rhyodacite[17]
(refer to Figure
11.1[18]), with those along the coast
being exposed due to extensive industrial and infrastructure construction.
Human Geography
11.4.2.7
The assessment area is in general low in population. Natural landscapes and coastlines in various
areas were changed due to development at different times. West Tsing Yi experienced extensive
reclamation along the coast starting in the 1960s. North Lantau started development from the mid
to late 1990s when the infrastructure project of the Airport Core Programme
(ACP) set in with extensive reclamation and construction works took place
including at Tai Chuen for the Lantau Link.
The infrastructure project also affected the natural environment in
northwest Tsing Yi and southern Ma Wan.
Aerial photos (Appendix
11.1
Plate 1[19] and Plate 2[20] refer) provide comparison on the change of landscapes
in Tsing Yi Northwest, Ma Wan and Northeast Lantau between 1990 and 1997.
Qin to Yuan Dynasties (221BC to AD1368)
11.4.3.1
Clues of human occupation within the south China
can be found in historic textual records such as Shiji
(史記) and Hanshu
(漢書),
written in the first century BC and first century AD respectively. These records describe that Yue ethnic
groups (also known as Hundreds of Yue (百越)) were
scattered in southern China. The Yue
ethnic groups were comprised of different tribes bearing various surnames and
can be differentiated from the Han ethnic group who lived in central
China in terms of physical characteristics, language, and folklore.
11.4.3.2
The Yue people were gradually assimilated
into the Han culture when southern China became an administration
territory of the central government since Qin dynasty (221 to
206BC). During the Qin period,
the Guangdong region was subordinated to Panyu (番禺) County.
In 208BC, Southern Yue State (南越國) was established around the Guangdong region by military officials, who were sent
from the Qin Court to conquer the Yue in the south. Following the collapse of Qins political
power in the north, Han dynasty (206BC to AD220)[21] began.
Southern Yue State was soon becoming a vassal state of Han before
integrated into the Han Empire.
11.4.3.3
Between Han and Eastern
Jin dynasties (AD317 to 420), Hong Kong was subordinated to Bolou (博羅) County[22]. From AD331 to AD756, Hong Kong was subordinated to Baoan (寶安) County.
After AD757, Hong Kong was subordinated to Dongguan (東莞) County and followed by Song dynasty
(AD960 to 1279) and Yuan dynasty (AD1271 to 1368) [23].
11.4.3.4
In ancient China, maritime
trade began as early as the Qin and Han dynasties. The Maritime Silk Road was a major conduit of
maritime trade between East and West[24]. Scholars studied about the Silk Road
of the Sea have suggested that silk was exported by sea
from Guangzhou to India and subsequently to Rome[25],[26]
as early as during the mid-first millennium (around 500BC). The South China Sea route had extended from
China westwards to Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean region.
11.4.3.5
For Ma Wan, human activities or inhabitants
could be dated back to the Neolithic period basing on the archaeological
excavations findings at Tung Wan Tsai in 1997 while artefacts from Han
period were also unearthed[27]. A Tang dynasty limekiln was recorded[28]
indicating the presence of human activities in Ma Wan during AD618-907.
11.4.3.6
In the 11th century during the Northern
Song dynasty, the government established the Salt
Field of Hoi Nam (海南場) on Lantau Island[29]. Later in the late 12th
century during the Southern Song dynasty, the salt industry had generated
remarkable tax revenue and became a major income for the government. At the time, salt trading was monopolised
among licensed producers and licensed merchants. To secure its monopoly, the government sought
to control unlicensed salt-working activities on Lantau[30]. That finally led to a major civil revolt by
the Lantau salt farmers. In 1197, to
suppress the movement, troops were sent from Guangzhou and most of the
villagers on Lantau were killed[31].
Ming to Qing Dynasties (AD1368 to 1912)
11.4.3.7 Since the Ming dynasty (1368 to 1644) and possibly earlier, Chinese navigators had started making records of routes and nautical navigation manuals and compiled them into compass journals (針路記錄 or 針經 in Chinese). Chinese historian Xiang Da (向達) found the solitary copies of two compass journals Shunfeng Xiangsong (順風相送) and Zhinan Zhengfa (指南正法), dated back to Ming and Qing dynasties[32],[33], in the collection of the Bodleian Library at Oxford University. He transcribed the text, collated, and published them in a book titled Two Compass Journals (兩種海道針)[34] in 1961. The route of Kap Shui Mun (急水門) was noted in Zhinan Zhengfa[35] . Ma Wan is in the channel of Kap Shui Mun.
11.4.3.8
Since the 14th century, Kap Shui Mun
and Lantau Island became increasingly associated with maritime traffic, trade, piracy,
and defence due to their important location at the eastern entrance to the
Pearl River Estuary. As described in the
Gazetteer of Xin'an County, much maritime
traffic between Macao and Guangzhou would have to transit through Kap Shui Mun
and Lantau Island due to ease of navigation in seasonal monsoon winds[36].
11.4.3.9
During the 15th
century, the coastal areas of Dongguan County suffered from frequent
marauding bandit and pirate attacks. Xinan (新安) County was thus set up
in AD1573 to defend such attacks. According to Xinan Gazetteer (新安縣誌)[37] , the modern region of Hong Kong fell within
the Xinan County.
To combat the
pirates, the naval force of Guangdong province was organised into
several battalions responsible for different maritime territories. In the late 16th century,
garrisons were added to more strategic locations including Kap Shui Mun, Tuen
Mun and Tung Chung[38]. The Xinan Gazetteer of 1688 has recorded the setup of a war-junk patrol district at Ma
Wan in 1591[39].
11.4.3.10
The military presence is a
likely reason that the island of Kap Shui Mun (i.e., Ma Wan) appears
on maps dated to the Ming dynasty including the 1553 map of the
Guangdong Coast (全廣海圖) and Yue Daji (粵大記) of 1595[40]. Two points to note from Yue Daji (refer
to Appendix 11.1 Plate 3[41]). Firstly, the ancient name
of Kap Shui Mun in Chinese was spelled as 急水門, literally means rapid
water gate. The name was later changed
to Kap Shui Mun (汲水門) as people found the original name might not be
auspicious for water traffic[42]
(refer to Appendix 11.1 Plate 4). Secondly, Chun Fa Lok (春花落), the ancient
name of Tsing Yi, is marked on this map as well.
11.4.3.11
In 1661, Coastal Evacuation
Order was compelled by the Qing Court to stifle the anti-Manchu troops
in Taiwan. People living in coastal area
were forced to move 50 li (里) (approximately 25km) inland, including the New Territories
inhabitants. The Order was lifted in
1669. However, after the coastal
evacuation, population dropped severely.
During the Shunzhi reign (1643-1661), the population of Xinan County was recorded as 6,851. The population dropped to 2,172 in 1664
during the enforcement of the Order.
After the Order was lifted, people were encouraged to move back to Xinan County during late 17th to early 18th
centuries. In 1671, the population
increased to 3,972, 1,648 people were encouraged to move back during 1669 to
1671[43].
11.4.3.12 Regarding settlement on Ma Wan Island, the Chan (陳) clan migrated from Jiang Xi (江西) province to Tsing Yi, and then moved to Ma Wan[44]. The Chan arrived in Ma Wan in the village of Tin Liu (田寮) between 1695 and 1743[45]. The family Tanka boat people from different parts of mainland later settled in Ma Wan Town[46]. In 1794, being aware of the strategic importance of this area the British conducted a secret survey of Ma Wan with a view to the island being taken over as its military and mercantile post[47]. The report of the Parrish Survey mentioned about arable land, inhabitants and huts of fishermen on the island[48].
11.4.3.13
In the late 18th to
19th century during the Qing dynasty, piracy activities in
the South China Sea once again became active.
It is thought that in his heyday, the pirate Cheung Po Tsai (張保仔) controlled a force of 300 ships and 70,000 people[49]. According to legends, Cheung Po Tsai once set up strongholds and
dispatched his people at Ng Kwu Leng (五鼓嶺) at northeast Lantau to watch over waters around[50] and founded the Tin Hau Temple at
Ma Wan west[51]. The power of Cheung was a great threat to
both the Qing imperial court and the Portuguese in Macau. In January 1810, a battle between Cheung Po
Tsai Po Tsai and the joint force of the naval force of Guangdong and the
Portuguese broke out at Chek Lap Kok[52],
known as the Battle of Chek Lap Kok.
The pirates were besieged in Tung Chung by the joint force. Eventually Cheung Po Tsai managed to break out
and fled to Stonecutters Island (昂船洲)[53], to
the southeast of Tsing Yi Island. Cheung
later accepted an amnesty offered by the Qing government and became a
naval official.
11.4.3.14
After the First Opium War (1839 to 1842) between the Qing
government and the British Empire, the Qing government
ceded
the
Island of Hongkong, to be possessed in perpetuity by
Great Britain signed in
1842 under the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Commerce Between Her Majesty
The Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor
of China (also known as the Treaty of Nanking (南京條約)) [54]. The Qing government lost the Second
Opium War (1856 to 1860), which led to the ceding Kowloon as a dependency of
Hong Kong under the Convention of Peace Between Her Majesty and The Emperor
of China (also known as the Convention of Peking (北京條約)) in 1860[55]. At the turn of the 20th century, The
Convention between the United Kingdom and China, Respecting an Extension of
Hong Kong Territory (also known as the Second Convention of Peking (第二北京條約)) signed between the British and
the Qing government in 1898 allowed the British colony to
enlarged
under lease
[for] ninety-nine years. [56]
11.4.3.15
Due to its strategic
position-straddling the vital passage to Canton, one of the four Chinese
Imperial Maritime Customs stations in the vicinity of Hong Kong was established
on Kap Shui Mun (Ma Wan)[57]. In 1887, the four stations came under the
management of the Kowloon Customs Commission.
Following the lease of the New Territories to Britain in 1898 these
stations were allowed to remain for a period but eventually ceased activity in
1899. The Hong Kong Government took
formal possession of the Capsuimum (another
name of Kap Shui Mun) station on 29 December 1899. The customs stations ceased functioning after
Hong Kong was made a free port and eventually were run down[58]. The custom stations were known as Kowloon Pass (九龍關). Two stone tablets now erected near the Ma Wan
Rural Office are the remains of the station at Ma Wan and proof of the
intensity of marine activities and trades in this area. They were confirmed as Grade 3 historic
building in 2010[59].
11.4.3.16
Hong Kong was declared a free trade port after it went under British
rule. To cope with
burgeoning economic growth and enable vessel safety around the waters of Hong
Kong the government proposed to build lighthouse as early as 1850s. The Cape dAguilar
Lighthouse was the first lighthouse erected and light
was first exhibited on 16 April 1875.
The Green Island Lighthouse commenced operation in 1875, followed by
Cape Collinson Lighthouse in 1876. The
beacon of Gap Rock Lighthouse beamed for the first time in 1892[60].
11.4.3.17 In terms of population and human
activities recorded towards at the turn of the 20th century, in the Extracts
from A Report by Mr. Stewart Lockhart on the Extension of the Colony of Hong
Kong by Sir J.H Lockhart in 1898, a village named Ma Wan (馬灣) was recorded. It was categorised as a Punti
village with a population of 400[61]. In 1901, a tenant surnamed Cheng has rented
the southeast tip of Ma Wan and Tang Lung Chau as firewood logging sites[62]. Whereas on Tsing Yi Island, inhabitancy can be traced more than 200 years ago, with surnames of Lam, Fan,
Chan, Tang and Cheung. Residents
initially concentrated on the top of the peaks to prevent pirate invasion,
gradually dispersed in places such as the foot of the mountains[63].
11.4.3.18
In 1912, a lighthouse was installed on Kap Sing Island (the name of Tang
Lung Chau then) to the southward of Kap Sing Mun (Kap Shui Mun). Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse went into service
on 29 April 1912. It was declared a
monument in 2000[64].
Modern Period (after 1912)
Ma Wan
11.4.3.19
Based on oral history, during World War II, there
were Japanese army and navy posted to Ma Wan and
villagers were executed or murdered during the Japanese Occupation[65].
11.4.3.20
In 1960, it was reported that about 540 Tanka
boat people arrived in Ma Wan by sampans.
Most of them later abandoned their fishing practices and settled in the
C. A. R. E. (Committee for American Relief Everywhere) village on the hill
above Ma Wan Town in 1964 to 1965 due to the gradual decline of fishery
productivity[66]. The population of Ma Wan remained in the
hundreds in the early 1990s[67].
11.4.3.21
During the time the Airport Core Programme was proposed, Ma Wan was devised to be part
of the Lantau Link, a roadway connecting Lantau Island and Tsing Yi. As a result, extensive reclamation and
development were carried out for the construction of Tsing Ma Bridge, Ma Wan
Viaduct and Kap Shui Mun Bridge (Refers to Appendix 11.1 Plates 1 and 2). In the late 1990s, the northeastern part of
Ma Wan Island has developed into a private housing estate known as Park
Island. According to the 2016 Population
By-census, Ma Wan District has a population of around 15,000[68] and
they are concentrated on the northern half the island.
Tsing
Yi
11.4.3.22
Tsing Yi was dominated by hilly landscape and was considered a deserted
island with sparse population 100 years ago[69]. A newspaper reported discussions of Tsing Yi
development in 1956 and noted that the island then was having of a population
of 2,000[70],
and governmental plans started in 1961[71]. Under the plans, there had been land reclamation
in Tsing Yi Bay; and the establishment of housing estates in the east after the
Ten-year Housing Programme was announced in 1972[72]. On the
other hand, in the mid-1960s, various oil companies chose Tsing Yi West as
their bases of oil depots[73] . The
coastline was extensively altered by reclamation and construction (refer to Appendix 11.1 Plate 5[74]) since then. Several oil depots and dockyards
now based at Tsing Yi northwest coast,
for example Shell (Hong Kong), and
Hongkong United Dockyards, moved in the area in the 1990[75],[76].
Lantau
11.4.3.23
North Lantau had not been through major
developments until 1990s. Rapid
developments took place upon the Tung Chung New Town Development and
the Hong Kong International Airport.
Extensive reclamations have taken place along the northern Lantau coast
to facilitate the construction and other supporting infrastructures including
the Lantau Link. Today,
the Lantau Island is home to over 170,000 people with most of which
concentrated in Tung Chung in the northwest.[77] Meanwhile, with the completion of the Hong
Kong Zhuhai Macao Bridge in 2018, North Lantau Island had become the
transport hub of Hong Kong.
11.5.1.1
No
site of archaeological interest (SAI) with known archaeological interest is
located within the Project boundary or assessment area.
11.5.1.2
A
salvage excavation was conducted at Sha Lau Tong Wan, Ma Wan in December
1991. Neolithic pottery pieces and
relics from Tang to Qing dynasties were found on the site. Based on the findings, the site was dated to
the late Neolithic period (2200 to 1500BC) of the Pearl River Delta area[78]. Sha Lau Tong Wan is a bay at the
south-eastern coast of Ma Wan. The site
was destroyed due to the construction of the Lantau Link.
11.6.1.1
The Ma Wan Channel, located between the islands of
Ma Wan Island and Tsing Yi off the coast of north-east Lantau (Tai Yue Shan
or Tai Hai Shan), is one of the most strategically and historically
significant waterways in Hong Kong SAR territory. This narrow and deep
fairway, now spanned by the Tsing Ma Bridge, has been the principal sailing and
maritime trade route to Guangzhou since the Tang dynasty and remains so today. The Kap
Shui Mun Passage to the west of Ma Wan (which means rapid water gate),
separates Ma Wan and the north-east corner of Lantau Island, and is directly
opposite to Sham Tseng. Due to high tidal streams and its location
windward of north-east monsoon winds, it was not such a significant waterway
until more recent times (Davis, 1949[79]).
11.6.1.2
These two channels were the principal exit and
entry point for Victoria Harbour for ships bound for Guangzhou and other ports
in the Pearl River Delta (Ng, 1983[80]).
As early as 1591 (Ming dynasty),
patrol boats frequented the pass. Half a century later, the Manchu government
erected a military post on Ma Wan Island with ten guards (CE 77/2019). From
AMOs records, three SAIs have been identified on the island: Ma Wan Kiln, Ma
Wan Old Customs Station and Ma Wan Rock Inscription. These internationally important land
archaeological sites and the well-documented maritime history give Ma Wan
Island a particularly high marine archaeological potential.
11.6.1.3
The Ma Wan fairway has been a key maritime trading
route and thoroughfare to Guangzhou from the east since the days of the
maritime Silk Road, and its importance was magnified once European vessels
commenced trade in the Pearl River Delta area from the 16th century (Endacott
1993[81]).
The site
of the Battle of Tunmen or Tamγo,
a naval battle in which the Ming imperial navy defeated a Portuguese
fleet led by Diogo Calvo in 1521, is less than 10km north-west of the study
area (Boxer, 1969[82]).
11.6.1.4
The entire coastal area of the region would have
been devastated by the impact of the Ming Qing dynasties coastal evacuation in 1662, when the Qing
Emperor Kangxi released an edict designed to suppress piracy and the larger maritime
coastal economic network which remained loyal to the deposed Ming dynasty
Murray,1987[83]).
The edict
was only relaxed in 1669 (Siu, 1989[84]).
11.6.1.5
During the 18th century, the area became used more
widely by European sailing vessels. Alexander Dalrymple, Chief Hydrographer to
the British East India Company from 1779 to 1795 (Empson, 1992[85])
designated this sailing route for all British approaching Guangzhou vessels, facilitating
the northerly passage in winter north-easterly monsoons.
In
February 1794, Lieutenant Henry William Parish was dispatched from Macau in a
small, ten-gun sailing brig called HMS Jackall, to
explore the island of Ma Wan, (known by the British as Cow-hee;
Cranmner-Byng, 1964[86]).
He was
ordered to report on its potential as a base for British ships trading with Canton, and produced the chart (refer to Appendix 11.3 Plate 4). Parish noted that The inhabitants who
were fishermen were civil but they appeared to be
alarmed by our arrival,.
11.6.1.6
It was hardly surprising because this was pirate
country (Sayer, 1991[87]).
The Tin
Hau temple at Pak Wan is thought to have been sponsored by the notorious pirate
commander Cheung Po Tsai (Lui,1990[88]).
In the
1790s he was approaching the height of his power operating a pirate fleet of
several hundred vessels along with his wife and adopted mother, Ching Yi Sao
(Anthony, 2022).
11.6.1.7
The maritime significance of the area is reflected
in McCartneys journal dated 2-7 Jan 1794, which considers the merits of
overthrowing the Portuguese enclave at Macau. He reflects: Or
with as little trouble and much more advantage we might make a settlement in
Lantau or Cow-hee and then Macau would of itself
crumble to nothing within a short time (Cranmner-Byng,
1964[89]).
11.6.1.8
By early 1836, the area around Kap Shui Mun was
frequently used as an anchorage. In December 1836 a party of Americans and
Englishmen: [passed] through the safe anchorage known as Urmstons harbour, or
Toon Kwu, and entered the safe anchorage of
Kap Shui Mun, at the northeast coast of Lantau (Coates,1980[90]).
11.6.1.9
During the
Anglo-Chinese hostilities in 1840, Kap Shui Mun was used extensively as an
anchorage by British merchant and naval vessels, as they were no longer welcome
in the vicinity of Macao. On 24 March 1840 H.M.S. Druid arrived at Toon
Kwu (Sayer,1991[91]).
11.6.1.10
In 1868, the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs
established a Customs Station on Ma Wan, for the customs inspection of the junk
traffic out of Hong Kong, and the collection of the revenues due from it. There
survive two inscribed stones, each dated 1897, which are preserved near the
north-west of Ma Wan Island. The first is inscribed with The Kowloon Customs (九龍關); a second inscription states The Kowloon Customs have borrowed seven
English feet of Land (九龍關借地七英尺).
11.6.1.11
The southern shore of Ma Wan by Tai Pai Tsui
pier is less well documented and investigated than the eastern and western
coastline where there is significant history and archaeology, but it offers a
small boat anchorage and ready access to the western and eastern straits of the
Ma Wan Channel.
11.6.1.12
On the north-eastern side of the Ma Wan Fairway is
the island of Tsing Yi. The name literally means "green clothes",
though the island to the northwest of Hong Kong Island and south of Tsuen Wan actually got its name from a type of fish once abundant in
nearby waters. (Davis, 1949[92])
The island has been occupied since the Ming dynasty (1368-1644); in
addition to land villages there has been a large population of boat dwellers (Tanka)
in Tsing Yi (Faure, 1984[93]).
11.6.1.13
The Tin Hau
temple was relocated from Tsuen Wan in the Jiaqing era (1796 to
1820). There is also a great deal of oral history on the island, detailing
local measures taken to avoid raids of pirates in Ming and Qing
times. This area was favoured by pirates for several
centuries; its western shore (now reclaimed for the container terminal) would
have offered good sheltered harbours for small and
large vessels.
11.7.1.1
This section discusses built heritage (discussed
under BHIA), archaeological heritage (discussed under AIA) and marine
archaeological heritage (discussed under MIA) identified within the assessment
area. They are defined and categorised
as follows:
11.7.1.2
The Appendix J of the EIA Study Brief (No. ESB-359/2023) stated
that the Applicant shall conduct a built heritage impact assessment (BHIA),
taking the results of the previous studies and other background of the site
into account, to identify known and unknown built heritage items within the
assessment area that may be affected by the Project and its associated works
and to assess the direct and indirect impacts on built heritage items. For this report, both Known Built
Heritage and Unknown Built Heritage are defined as follows:
Known
Built Heritage
11.7.1.3
Known built heritage are the
tangibles accorded with status, including the following:
· declared monument: the concerned place, building, site or structure has been declared a monument under the A&MO (Cap. 53); and included under the latest list of Declared Monuments in Hong Kong[94];
· proposed monument: the concerned place, building, site or structure which is declared to be a proposed monument, proposed historic building, or structure under the A&MO (Cap. 53);
· grade 1 historic building: as listed in the List of the 1444 Historic Buildings with Assessment Results[95] , under the definition by the AAB, it is a building of outstanding merit, which every effort should be made to preserve if possible[96];
· grade 2 historic building: as listed in the List of the 1444 Historic Buildings with Assessment Results[97], under the definition by the AAB, it is a building of special merit which efforts should be made to selectively preserve[98];
· grade 3 historic building: as listed in the List of the 1444 Historic Buildings with Assessment Results[99], under the definition by the AAB, it is a building of some merit which preservation in some form would be desirable and alternative means should be considered if preservation is not practicable[100];
· item to be assessed for grading by AAB: currently under the List of new items for grading assessment with grading results[101], and yet to be accorded a grading by the AAB; and
· government historic site identified by the AMO: under the list of government historic site recorded by the AMO.[102]
Unknown Built Heritage
11.7.1.4
Unknown built heritage are the tangibles not
included under the known built heritage listed above. However, these unknown built heritages
(hereafter known as other identified items) are still assessed from the perspectives
of historical, architectural, cultural as well as group value[103],
including but not limited to:
·
Item endorsed
no grading by AAB: currently
under the List of New Items for Grading Assessment with Grading Results, the
AAB has discussed and endorsed this building with no grading.
Archaeological Heritage
11.7.1.5
Archaeological heritage are the places / areas of archaeological
significance, or where the archaeological potential is considered
noteworthy. The archaeological heritage
exclusively includes the following:
· site of archaeological interest (SAI): under the list of sites of archaeological interest in Hong Kong maintained by the AMO[104]; and
· area of archaeological potential identified in previous studies and/or this Project, but not included in the item above.
11.7.2.1
Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse, a declared monument, is
identified within the 300m assessment area.
11.7.2.2
Four (4) other items were identified in the 300m assessment area. They are all with no status accorded. The old pier at Tang Lung Chau West is
within the Project boundary. Whereas an
abandoned house and a small structure close to the Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse, as well as an inscribed stone
pillar at Yi Chuen are outside the Project boundary.
11.7.2.3
Refer to Figures 11.2 to Figure 11.4 for
their locations and Appendix 11.2 detailed
descriptions.
Built
Heritage
DM72 Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse (Declared
Monument)
11.7.2.4
Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse is a declared monument
outside the Project boundary. It is one
of the five surviving pre-war lighthouses in Hong Kong and the only one with
steel skeleton structures. The working
lighthouse has been providing navigation guidance to mariners and witnessing
the marine activities of Kap Shui Mun and Hong Kong for more than 110
years. It is part of the living history
of lighthouse in Hong Kong. It holds
significance in cultural heritage significance from architectural, historical,
and cultural perspectives. More details
on Appendix
11.2.
Other Identified
Items
NB1 The Abandoned House close to Tang Lung Chau
Lighthouse (No Status)
11.7.2.5
The house is 20m away from the Lighthouse on its
east and it is outside the Project boundary.
The 40m2 one-storey building is in a rectangular plan with a
flat roof. Two features of the
house are noteworthy: the thickness of the wall, and the gun holes underneath
the windows. It is estimated that the
building in one stage of history could be of defensive or military purpose. There are published photos of this house
taken in the 1950s. It is also appearing
with the lightkeepers house on the same record plan of Kup
Sing Island (now Tang Lung Chau[105])
of the Public Works Department, dated 1969.
It is regarded as having cultural heritage significance in architecture, group, and
historic values. More
details on Appendix
11.2.
NB2
The Small Structure close to Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse (No Status)
11.7.2.6
This small structure is about 10m away from the
Lighthouse and less than 10m away from the abandoned house
(mentioned above). It is outside the
Project boundary. The stone and mud
structure is about 4m2. It holds a group value with the Tang Lung Chau
Lighthouse and the abandoned house. With
its image found on a published photo dated to the 1950s to 1960s, it is
regarded as having historical significance in cultural heritage as well. More details on Appendix 11.2.
NB3 The Old Pier at Tang Lung Chau West (No
Status)
11.7.2.7
The pier is within the Project boundary. The construction year of the pier is unknown,
but its image can be traced to an aerial photo dated 1963 and a published photo
taken in the 1950s to 1960s. It is
believed to be an earlier and possibly the main pier on Tang Lung Chau Island
connecting the Lighthouse and the rest of the territory. The old pier is
regarded as having cultural heritage significance in architecture, group, and
historic values. More details on Appendix 11.2.
NB4 Inscribed Stone Pillar at Yi Chuen (No
Status)
11.7.2.8
The granite stone pillar stands more than 2m high, with 喃嘸阿彌陀佛, the Buddhist
"Namo Amitabha, inscribed on the side facing the waterway of Kap Shui
Mun. The pillar was erected to tame the
water according to folk belief. With the
background of Kap Shui Mun being an important waterway historically, and the
fact that it is now the only one standing along the actual channel, the
inscribed stone pillar at Yi Chuen is significant in cultural heritage
in social perspective. More
details on Appendix
11.2.
11.7.2.9
Table
11.1 below summarised the built heritage and other
identified items.
Table 11.1 Summary of Built Heritage and Other
Identified Items within 300m of Project Boundary
|
Index |
Name |
Status |
Approx. Distance from Project Boundary |
|
DM72 |
Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse |
Declared Monument |
65m |
|
NB1 |
Abandoned house close to
Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse |
No Status |
55m |
|
NB2 |
No Status |
60m |
|
|
NB3 |
Old pier at Tang Lung
Chau West |
No Status |
Within Project boundary |
|
NB4 |
Inscribed stone pillar at
Yi Chuen |
No Status |
60m |
11.7.3.1
No SAI with known archaeological interest is located within the Project
boundary or assessment area.
11.7.3.2
The Northshore Lantau Development
Feasibility Study EIA (2000)[106]
and Route 11 (Section between Yuen Long and North Lantau) EIA Study (2023)[107]
noted that Fa Peng Teng SAI was around their areas but would not be
affected. In this Project, Fa Peng Teng
SAI is located more than 450m from the Project boundary and
also not to be affected.
11.7.3.3
Two areas were identified with archaeological potential in the
feasibility stage[108]. Figure 11.5 indicates the two areas
with archaeological potential (APA1 and APA2).
Even though
Tang Lung Chau APA (APA1) is within the Project boundary, however, the
Project works are over 200m away, no direct or indirect impact is
anticipated. Pak Nai Shan APA (APA2) is
outside the Project boundary. The
archaeological potential of the two areas with archaeological potential
recorded in the feasibility stage are therefore considered to be negligible.
11.7.4.1
The only contemporary source of information about the seabed is the
Marine Department Electronic Navigation Chart. It shows a total of fifty-eight (58) shipwrecks have been charted in Hong Kong, most of which are located in the south-eastern coastal waters. The locations of the identified shipwrecks are shown in Appendix 11.3 Plate 1.
11.7.4.2
The UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) holds a database of surveyed
shipwrecks in Hong Kong, including those not shown on Admiralty Charts. The database contains no record of shipwrecks close to the assessment
area. However, the Hydrographic Office
only charted wrecks which are a potential hazard to navigation. It is therefore possible that there are other
wrecks within the assessment area which are partially or totally buried and
thus not recorded.
11.7.4.3
There has been no
previous MAI or seabed investigation within the assessment area.
11.7.4.4
The assessment area is
shown on a late 16th century coastal map of Kwang Tung by Kwok Fei
(refer to Appendix 11.3 Plate 2[109]). Although it is drawn in panoramic
style looking from land to sea, many of the names are still in use today. There are numerous ships on the sea which
could be either junks or Portuguese carracks.
The assessment area is also shown on a map by Chan Lun Kwing in his book
Hoi Kwok Man Kin Luk (A record of the Countries of the Sea), printed in Ngai
Hoi Chu Chan in 1744 (refer to Appendix
11.3 Plate 3[110]). These maps
are particularly important as they indicate that the area was established as a
known coastal settlement from the 16th century.
11.7.4.5
Perhaps the most
interesting historic chart for the assessment area, however, is that of William
Parish, who surveyed the area in February 1794 in HMS Jackall
as part of an investigation of Ma Wan (J. L. Cranmer-Byng and A. Shepherd
1964). The survey vessel surveyed anchored close to the shore and within the
current assessment area (refer to Appendix
11.3 Plate 4[111]).
11.7.4.6
The first map which
clearly depicts Hong Kong harbour in detail is an 1810 marine chart (refer to Appendix 11.3 Plate 5). This chart
was prepared for the East India Company by Daniel Ross and Philip Maughan,
Lieutenants of the Bombay Marine (Empson 1992[112]).
This chart is
particularly relevant as it indicates a known Ladrone (pirate) lair in the
nearby vicinity of northern Tsing Yi.
11.7.4.7
The British Admiralty
Chart for 1853 is presented in Appendix
11.3 Plate 6. None of these charts show any known wreck sites
within the assessment area.
11.8.1.1
The following discussion on the
impact on cultural heritage, including built heritage and other identified
items, as well as terrestrial and marine archaeology, will be based on their
relations to the Project.
11.8.1.2
Impact on built heritage is
presented in Section 11.8.2,
while Figure 11.2 gives an
overview of the locations of the built heritage and other identified items in
relation to the locations of works.
Closer looks of individual built heritage and other identified items in
relation to the works can be referred to Figures
11.3 and 11.4.
11.8.1.3
Impacts on terrestrial
archaeology and marine archaeology are presented in Section 11.8.3
and Section 11.8.4,
respectively.
11.8.2.1 The declared monument Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse is around 65m from the Project boundary. The Project works do not involve the demolition of this built heritage. No direct or indirect impact is anticipated due to the considerable distance between the declared monument and the works area.
Other
Identified Items
11.8.2.2 The abandoned house close to the Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse is about 55m away from the Project boundary. The Project works do not involve the demolition of this building. No direct or indirect impact is anticipated due to the considerable distance from the works area.
11.8.2.3 The small structure close to the Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse is about 60m away from the Project boundary. The Project works do not involve the demolition of this building. No direct or indirect impact is anticipated due to the considerable distance from the works area.
11.8.2.4 The old pier at Tang Lung Chau West is sitting within the Project boundary. It is however located on an island and more than 200m away from the Project works. The Project works do not involve the demolition of this structure. No direct or indirect impact is anticipated due to the considerable distance from the works area.
11.8.2.5 The inscribed stone pillar at Yi Chuen is approximately 60m away from the Project boundary. The Project works do not involve the demolition of this pillar. No direct or indirect impact is anticipated due to the considerable distance from the works area.
11.8.2.6
No direct or indirect impact is expected on the built heritage and other
identified items during the operational phase.
11.8.3.1 No site of archaeological interest is situated within the assessment area. Hence, no impact is anticipated on any SAIs during the construction and operational phases.
11.8.3.2 Referring to Section 11.7.3, the Project should impose no impact on archaeology during the construction and operational phases.
11.8.4.1
Subsequent to the approval of Diver Survey Proposal, it was
revealed that one of the sonar contacts (A4-SC003) and one area of systematic
diver survey in the close vicinity of the Hongkong United Dockyards (HUD) at
Tsing Yi should be excluded from the survey due to diver safety concerns. As
such, the remaining total of thirty-three (33) anomalies were selected for further investigation
by diver survey along with one area of systematic survey to the south of Ma
Wan.
11.8.4.2
Diver survey was
undertaken from 28 September to 4 October 2024 upon the issuance of Licence to Excavate and
Search for Antiquities. A total of thirty-three (33) dives were undertaken. In
two cases, anomalies were grouped sufficiently close (<10m) that inspection
could be accomplished on a single dive.
This resulted in a total of thirty (30) dives on the geophysical
anomalies identified for inspection in the diver survey proposal, and three
additional systematic survey dives to investigate the area not covered by
geophysical survey data.
11.8.4.3
All the targets were identified positively. The
targets comprised construction detritus, mainly blocks, pipes, reinforcing
rods, scrap metal and other dumped material; geological
feature, comprising isolated rocks sitting proud of the seabed; and two modern nautical-related items. None of the targets
are considered of archaeological interest. No
further investigations are therefore considered necessary.
11.8.4.4
Three (3) systematic surveys were undertaken by divers in the area
for which there was limited geophysical survey data. This comprised 60m
transect searches, shoreward of the dive support vessel. No material of
archaeological potential was encountered during these searches, and no further
investigations are considered necessary.
11.8.4.5 As stated in Section 11.8.4.1 above, one target
(A4-SC003) and the area of systematic survey in the close vicinity of the HUD
were excluded from the survey. Analysis of a series of
historic maps and aerial photographs from 1962 to 2000, however, highlight the
extensive industrialisation of the area since the late 1970s, including land
reclamation associated with the construction of the dockyards. The archaeological potential of this area is
therefore considered low, and no further investigation is deemed
necessary.
11.8.4.6 No impact on marine
archaeology is anticipated from the Project during the construction phase.
11.8.4.7 Details can be
referred to the Marine Archaeological Investigation Report in Appendix 11.4.
11.8.4.8 No impact on marine archaeology is
anticipated during the operational phase.
11.9.1.1
As no direct or indirect impact is anticipated on the built heritage and
other identified items during the construction and operational phases,
therefore no mitigation measure is required.
11.9.2.1
No impact on terrestrial
archaeology is anticipated by the Project during the construction and operational phases. As a
precautionary measure and pursuant to
the A&MO (Cap. 53), the project proponent is required to inform AMO immediately in case of
discovery of antiquities or supposed antiquities in the course of construction
of the works, so that appropriate mitigation measures, if needed, can be timely
formulated and implemented in agreement with and to the satisfaction of AMO.
11.9.3.1
No impact on marine archaeology is anticipated from the Project. As a precautionary
measure and pursuant to the A&MO (Cap. 53), the project proponent is
required to inform AMO immediately in case of discovery of antiquities or
supposed antiquities in the course of construction of the works, so that
appropriate mitigation measures, if needed, can be timely formulated and
implemented in agreement with and to the satisfaction of AMO.
11.10.1.1 No environmental monitoring and
audit (EM&A) would be required for the built heritage and other identified
items during the construction phase.
11.10.1.2
No EM&A would be required for terrestrial archaeology
during the construction phase. As a precautionary measure and pursuant to
the A&MO (Cap. 53), the project proponent is required to inform AMO
immediately in case of discovery of antiquities or supposed antiquities in the
course of works, so that appropriate mitigation measures, if needed, can be
timely formulated and implemented in agreement with and to the satisfaction of
AMO.
11.10.1.3
No EM&A would be
considered required for marine archaeology during the construction phase. As a
precautionary measure and pursuant to the A&MO (Cap. 53), the project
proponent is required to inform AMO immediately in case of discovery of
antiquities or supposed antiquities in the course of construction of the works,
so that appropriate mitigation measures, if needed, can be timely formulated
and implemented in agreement with and to the satisfaction of AMO.
11.10.2.1
No EM&A would be required for built heritage
and both terrestrial and marine archaeology during this phase.
11.11.1.1 A declared monument and four (4) other items are identified within the assessment area.
11.11.1.2 No direct and indirect impact is anticipated on the declared monument Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse located outside the Project boundary.
11.11.1.3 Four other items are identified within the assessment area namely the abandoned house close to the Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse, the small structure close to Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse, the old pier at Tang Lung Chau West, and the inscribed stone pillar at Yi Chuen. No direct nor indirect impacts are anticipated during the construction and operational stages.
11.11.1.4 No SAI or area with archaeological potential is encroached by the works areas. No terrestrial archaeological impact is anticipated. As a precautionary measure and pursuant to the A&MO (Cap. 53), the project proponent is required to inform AMO immediately in case of discovery of antiquities or supposed antiquities in the course of construction of the works, so that appropriate mitigation measures, if needed, can be timely formulated and implemented in agreement with and to the satisfaction of AMO.
11.11.1.5 There has been no previous MAI or seabed investigation within the
assessment area. Historical
marine charts were reviewed and none of them show any known wreck sites within
the assessment area. A MAI was conducted
for the Project. The diver survey
results show that none of the thirty-three (33) anomalies was
considered to be of archaeological potential
and no further investigations are required. Besides, the
systematic diver survey to the south of Ma Wan did not identify any features
with archaeological potential.
11.11.1.6 One
target (A4-SC003) and the area of systematic survey in the close vicinity of
the HUD were excluded from the survey owing to diver safety concerns. Based on
the analysis of a series of historic maps and aerial
photographs from 1962 to 2000, there have been extensive industrialisation of
the area since the late 1970s, including land reclamation associated with the
construction of the dockyards. As such, the archaeological potential of this
area is considered low, and therefore no further investigation is deemed
necessary.
11.11.1.7 No impact on marine archaeology is anticipated from the Project. As a precautionary measure and pursuant to the A&MO (Cap. 53), the project proponent is required to inform AMO immediately in case of discovery of antiquities or supposed antiquities in the course of construction of the works, so that appropriate mitigation measures, if needed, can be timely formulated and implemented in agreement with and to the satisfaction of AMO.
[1] Hong Kong
e-Legislation. Cap. 499 Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance. Retrieved
from https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap499?xpid=ID_1438403274391_002.
[2] Antiquities and
Monuments Office. Declared Monuments in Hong Kong (as at
10 October 2024). https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/DM_Mon_List.pdf
[3] Antiquities
Advisory Board. List of the 1,444 Historic Buildings with Assessment Results
(as of 6 March 2025). https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/AAB-SM-chi.pdf
[4] Antiquities
Advisory Board. List of New Items for Grading Assessment with Assessment
Results (as of 13 March 2025). https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/list_new_items_assessed.pdf.
[5] Antiquities
and Monuments Office. Government Historic Sites Identified by AMO (as at May 2022). https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/build_hia_government_historic_sites.pdf
[6] Antiquities
and Monuments Office. List of Sites of Archaeological Interest in Hong Kong
(as at Nov 2022). https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/list_archaeolog_site_eng.pdf
[7] Fill
Management Division CEDD. (2019). Marine Fill Resources and Sediment
Disposal Areas (as at 18 Dec 2021). Civil
Engineering and Development Department. https://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/public-services-forms/fill-management/marine/marine-fill/index.html
[8] Bernie Owen &
Raynor Shaw Hong Kong Landscapes Shaping
the Barren Rock. (2007) Hong Kong University Press.
[9] Patrick H.
Hase. (2020). Settlement, Life, and Politics Understanding the Traditional
New Territories. Hong Kong. City University of Hong Kong.
[10] Survey and Mapping Office. (January 2023). Hong Kong Geographic Data
2023. Survey
and Mapping Office, Lands Department.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Geotechnical Engineering Office. (1991). Hong
Kong Geological Survey-Silver Mine Bay-Sheet 10. Geotechnical Engineering
Office, Civil Engineering Department.
[14] R.J. Sewell
and J.C.W. James. Hong Kong Geological Survey Sheet Report No. 4 Geology of
North Lantau Island and Ma Wan (1995).
Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department.
[15] Geotechnical Engineering Office. (2019). Hong Kong Geological Survey-Yuen Long-Sheet
6;1991. Hong Kong Geological Survey-Silver Mine Bay-Sheet 10.
Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department.
[16] Geotechnical Engineering Office. (1991). Hong
Kong Geological Survey-Silver Mine Bay-Sheet 10. Geotechnical Engineering
Office, Civil Engineering Department.
[17] Bernie Owen
& Raynor Shaw. (2007). Hong Kong Landscapes Shaping the Barren Rock.
Hong Kong University Press.
[18] Geotechnical Engineering Office. (2019). Hong Kong Geological Survey-Yuen Long-Sheet
6;1991. Hong Kong Geological Survey-Silver Mine Bay-Sheet 10.
Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department.
[19] Survey and Mapping Office. (1990). Digital Aerial Photo. 10000
(ft). 1990_A24384. Survey and Mapping Office, Lands Department.
[20] Survey and Mapping Office. (1997). Digital Aerial Photo. 10000
(ft). 1997_CN19033. Survey and Mapping Office, Lands Department
[21] 司馬遷 (c.a. 91BC) 。《史記》卷一百一十三 南越列傳 第五十三。北京：中華書局 (1959) 。
[22] Although the
boundary between Boluo (博羅) County and Panyu (番禺) County during Han to East Jin
period is unclear, it is generally suggested that Hong Kong region belonged to Boluo County at that time, according to Xinan Gazetteer (1819), Social Change in Hong
Kong Before and After the Early Qing Clearance (1986), and Brief History of
Ancient Shenzhen (1997). However, Professor Jao Tsung-I (2005) discussed that
the area belonged to Panyu based on the inscriptions on bricks of Lei
Cheng Uk Han Tomb.
[23] 劉智鵬、劉蜀永 (編) 。(2020)。《方志中的古代香港- 《新安縣志》香港史料選》。香港，三聯書店（香港）有限公司。
[24] Hong Kong Museum of History. Across
the Oceans: the Local Connections and Global
Dimensions of China's Maritime Silk Road.
(2016). https://hk.history.museum/en/web/mh/exhibition/2016_past_03.html
[25] Tansen Sen. Inventing the Maritime Silk Road.
Modern Asian Studies / Volume 57 / Issue 4 / July 2023. Cambridge
University Press.
[26]
Jao, Tsung-I. (1974). Shubu yu
Cinapatta: Lun zaoqi Zhong,
Yin, Mian zhi jiaotong 蜀布與 Cinapatta: 論早期中、印、緬之交通
(Sichuan Cloth and Cinapatta: Discussion on the Early
Communications between China, India, and Burma). Zhongyanyuan lishi yanjiusuo jikan 中研院歷史語言研究所集刊.
[27] Rogers,
P.R., Leininger, N.W., Mirchandani, S., van den Bergh, J. & Widdowson,
E.A., 1995. Tung Wan Tsai: A Bronze Age and Han period coastal site. AMO
Occasional Paper No.3, Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments Office.
[28] Peacock,
B.A.V. and Nixon, T. J.P. Summary site data sheet of Tung Wan Tsai, Ma Wan,
site no. 10/10. Report of the Hong Kong Archaeological Survey.
3.2(1985-86).
[29] 陳廷敬、徐乾學等（清）。《大清一統志·廣州府二》。中國哲學書電子化計劃. http://ctext.org: 「海南場在大奚山。今廢」
[30] 徐松（清）。《宋會要輯稿（一三五冊）》。中國哲學書電子化計劃. http://ctext.org: 「淳熙十年及十二年，禁大奚山私鹽」
[31] 阿爾拉·阿魯圖（元）。《宋史 · 卷三十七 · 寧宗本紀一》。中國哲學書電子化計劃. http://ctext.org:「廣東提舉茶鹽徐安國遣人捕私鹽於大奚山，島民遂作亂
辛卯，知廣州錢之望遣兵入大奚山，盡殺島民」
[32] Tam Kwong-lim/Marine
Department. Maritime Hong Kong before 1841. The Hong Kong region in navigation
records and maritime charts.
[33] 中國大百科全書。 《指南正法》。 取自 https://www.zgbk.com/ecph/words?SiteID=1&ID=526629&Type=bkztb&SubID=763。
[34] 金國平、吳志良（2001年）。《鏡海飄渺Histσria(S)de MacauFicΗ΄ao e Realidade》。澳門。澳門成人教育學會出版。取自《兩種海道針經》中佛郎機及珠江口資料補考 https://www.macaudata.mo/macaubook/book266/html/0264001.htm
[35] 向達（校註）1982。《兩種海道針經》。北京。中華書局。第157頁: 「樑頭門入門是媽祖廟前好拋船。入去小急水，九龍澳後好拋船。入出是大急水門，流水深無礁。北邊大山是傳門澳，好拋舡。」
[36] 舒懋官、王崇熙等（清）。《新安縣志·卷十二·海防略·防海形勢》。中國哲學書電子化計劃 http://ctext.org: 「縣治面俯大洋，如急水、佛堂、獨鰲、小三門、大嶼山諸隘皆出海所必經也。」
[37] 劉智鵬、劉蜀永 (編)。(2020)。《方志中的古代香港- 《新安縣志》香港史料選》。香港，三聯書店（香港）有限公司。
[38] 霍啟昌。（2012）《19世紀中葉以前的香港》。載王賡武編《香港史新編（上冊）》。香港：三聯書店。
[39] Patrick H. Hase. (2020). Settlement, Life, and Politics
Understanding the Traditional New Territories. Hong Kong. City University
of Hong Kong.
[40] Ibid.
[41] 郭棐（明）。《粵大記·卷三十二·海防圖》。載林天蔚、蕭國健著《香港前代史論集》（1985）。臺灣商務印書館。
[42] 朱維德。（2007）。《香港舊景掌故新談（一）》 。香港：香港自然探索學會。
[43] 靳文謨修、鄧文蔚纂 。（1688） 。新安縣志。在廣東省地方志辦公室編，廣東歴代方志集成：廣州府部（二六）[康熙]新安縣志 [嘉慶]新安縣志。廣東：嶺南美術出版社。
[44] Antiquities
Advisory Board. (2010). Historic Building Appraisal Fong Yuen Study Hall
https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/868_Appraisal_En.pdf.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Bard, S.
(1993). Historical and Archaeological Survey of Ma Wan. Unpublished
report. Hong Kong. Antiquities and Monuments Office.
[47] J.L. Cranmer-Byng and A. Shepherd. A Reconnaissance of Ma Wan and
Lantao Island in 1794, in Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society, Hong Kong Brance, Vol. 4.
[48] In 1794,
the British Government, in the context of the Macartney Mission, ordered
Lieutenant Henry Parrish of HMS Jackal to undertake a secret survey of
Ma Wan, with a view to its being taken over by the British as a military and
mercantile post. From Patrick H. Hase. (2020). Settlement, Life, and
Politics Understanding the Traditional New Territories. Hong Kong. City
University of Hong Kong.
[49] 國立故宮博物院。(2015)。《院藏剿撫張保仔史料彙編》。台灣: 國立故宮博物院。
[50] 朱維德。（2007）。《香港舊景掌故新談（一）》 。香港：香港自然探索學會。
[51] Patrick H.
Hase. (2020). Settlement, Life, and Politics Understanding the Traditional
New Territories. Hong Kong. City University of Hong Kong.
[52] 袁永綸（清）。《靖海氛記·下卷》。https://www.history.cuhk.edu.hk/proj/jinghaifenji.pdf: 「是時，張保方聚於赤瀝角之大嶼山。夷船往跡之，適（廣東）提督孫全謀亦率舟師百餘號至，遂會同擊賊。」
[53] 袁永綸（清）。《靖海氛記·下卷》。https://www.history.cuhk.edu.hk/proj/jinghaifenji.pdf: 「賊揚帆鼓噪，順風破圍而出。數百舟勢如山倒。官軍不意其遽逸，不能抵當。夷船放礮，賊以數十爛船遮之，不能傷賊。賊遂棄爛船而逃，直出仰船州外洋。」
[54] Mayers, William Fredrick. (1902, 4th
edition). Treaties Between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers.
Shanghai: North-China Hera Treaty of London (1871).
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid.
[57] 「...... 新安香山所屬汲水門等處為洋藥稅廠分卡 ......」。循環日報。(1880-11-20) 。選錄京報。香港 : Tsun Wan
Yat Po。
[58] Bard, S.
(1993). Historical and Archaeological Survey of Ma Wan. Unpublished
report. Antiquities and Monuments Office.
[59] List of
the 1444 Historic Buildings with Assessment Results (as at
6 March 2025). https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/AAB-SM-chi.pdf.
[60] Ho Pui-yin.
(2004). Challenges for an Evolving City. 160 years of Port and Land
Development in Hong Kong. Hong Kong. The Commercial Press (H.K.) Ltd.
[61] J.H. 司圖爾特.駱克。 (1989) 。〈駱克先生香港殖民地展拓界址報告書〉。劉智鵩主編，《展拓界址：英治新界早期歷史探索》。香港，中華書局。
[62] Patrick H.
Hase. (2020). Settlement, Life, and Politics Understanding the Traditional
New Territories. City University of Hong Kong
[63] 荃灣區議會。(1991)。《荃灣二百年》。香港。
[64] Antiquities and Monuments Office. Declared Monuments in
Hong Kong - New Territories. Tang Lung Chau Lighthouse, Tang Lung Chau, Kap
Shui Mun, Tsuen Wan. Retrieved from https://www.amo.gov.hk/en/historic-buildings/monuments/new-territories/monuments_72/index.html.
[65] Patrick H.
Hase. (2020). Settlement, Life, and Politics Understanding the Traditional
New Territories. Hong Kong. City University of Hong Kong
[66] Bard, S.
(1993). Historical and Archaeological Survey of Ma Wan. Unpublished report.
Antiquities and Monuments Office.
[67] Ibid.
[68] Population By-census
2016, (2017). Demographic Profiles of Population in Ma Wan District Council
Constituency Area, 2016. Retrieved from https://portal.csdi.gov.hk/geoportal/#searchPanel
[69] 荃灣區議會。(1991)。《荃灣二百年》。香港。
[70] 香港工商晚報。(1956-04-02) 。發展青衣島積極進行 商人投資籌填海建屋。 香港 : 工商日報。
[71] Planning Department. Planning for Liveable New Towns Tsuen
Wan. Planning Development.
[72] Hong Kong
Government. (1973). Hong Kong 1973, Report for the Year 1972. Hong Kong
Government.
[74] Survey and Mapping Office. 1969. Digital
Aerial Photo. 1969-1252. Survey and Mapping Office, Lands Department.
[75] Shell. Our
History in Hong Kong. Retrieved from https://www.shell.com.hk/en_hk/about-us/who-we-are/our-history.html
[76] HUDGroup. Milestone 1972. Retrieved from https://www.hud.com.hk/en/about-milestone
[77] Sustainable Lantau Office. (n.d.). Exploring
Lantau - Facts & Data. Retrieved 29th March 2022, from
Development and Conservation of Lantau website https://www.lantau.gov.hk/en/exploring-lantau/facts-data/index.html
[78] Chau,
H.W., 1995. Salvage excavation at the Late Neolithic site at Sha Lau Tong
Wan, Ma Wan. (in Chinese). In Chun-tong Yeung and Wai-ling Brenda Li
(Eds.), Conference Papers Archaeology in Southeast Asia (pp.487-508). Hong
Kong: The University Museum and Art Gallery, The University of Hong Kong.
[79] Davis, S.G.
1949. Hong Kong in its Geographical Setting. London. Collins.
[80] Ng, P. Y. L. 1983. New Peace County: A Chinese Gazetteer of the Hong Kong Region. Hong Kong. Hong Kong University Press.
[81] Endacott,
G.B. 1993. A History of Hong Kong. Hong Kong. Oxford University Press.
[82] Boxer, C. R. 1969. The Portuguese Seaborne Empire 1415-1825. London. Hutchinson & Co. Ltd.
[83] Murray, D.H. 1987. Pirates of the South China Coast 1790-1810. Stanford University Press.
[84] Siu, K.K. 1989. The History of Hong Kong: From a Village to a City. Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 29. Published by: Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Branch.
[85] Empson, H. 1992. Mapping Hong Kong.
Hong Kong. The Government Printer.
[86] Cranmner-Byng. J.L. & Shepherd,
A.1964. A reconnaissance of Ma Wan and Lantao
Islands in 1794. Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic
Society.
[87] Sayer, G. R. 1991. Hong Kong
1841-1862. Birth, Adolescence and Coming of Age. Hong Kong. Hong Kong
University Press.
[88] Lui Yuen-chung, A. 1990. Forts and Pirates - a History of Hong Kong. Hong Kong History Society.
[89] Cranmner-Byng. J.L. & Shepherd,
A.1964. A reconnaissance of Ma Wan and Lantao
Islands in 1794. Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic
Society.
[90] Coates, A. 1980. Whampoa. Ships on the Shore. Hong Kong. South
China Morning Post Limited.
[91] Sayer, G.
R. 1991. Hong Kong 1841-1862. Birth, Adolescence and Coming of Age. Hong Kong.
Hong Kong University Press.
[92] Davis, S.G.
1949. Hong Kong in its Geographical Setting. London. Collins.
[93] Faure, D. 1984. Journal Article Notes on the History of Tsuen Wan. Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Branch.
[94] Antiquities
and Monuments Office. Declared Monuments in Hong Kong (as at
10 October 2024). https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/DM_Mon_List.pdf
[95] Antiquities Advisory Board. List of the 1,444 Historic Buildings with
Assessment Results (as at 6 March 2025). https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/AAB-SM-chi.pdf.
[96] Antiquities Advisory Board. Assessment of 1444 Historic Buildings and
New Items. https://www.amo.gov.hk/en/historic-buildings/historic-buildings-hk/assessment/index.html.
[97] Antiquities Advisory Board. List of the 1,444 Historic Buildings with
Assessment Results (as at 6 March 2025). https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/AAB-SM-chi.pdf.
[98] Antiquities Advisory Board. Assessment of 1444 Historic Buildings and
New Items. https://www.amo.gov.hk/en/historic-buildings/historic-buildings-hk/assessment/index.html.
[99] Antiquities Advisory Board. List of the 1,444 Historic Buildings with
Assessment Results (as at 6 March 2025). https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/AAB-SM-chi.pdf.
[100] Antiquities Advisory Board. (n.d.). Assessment of 1444 Historic
Buildings and New Items. Antiquities and Monuments Office website https://www.amo.gov.hk/en/historic-buildings/historic-buildings-hk/assessment/index.html.
101 Antiquities Advisory
Board. List of New Items for Grading Assessment with Assessment Results (as of 13 March 2025. https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/list_new_items_assessed.pdf
[102] Antiquities
and Monuments Office. Government Historic Sites Identified by AMO (as at May 2022). https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/build_hia_government_historic_sites.pdf.
[103] Environmental Protection Department.
EIAO Guidance Notes on Assessment of Impact on Sites of Cultural
Heritage in Environmental Impact Assessment Studies.
[104] Antiquities
and Monuments Office. List of Sites of Archaeological Interest in Hong Kong*
(as at Nov 2012). https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/list_archaeolog_site_eng.pdf
[105] Kup Sing Island is a variation of Kap Sing Island.
[106] Civil Engineering Department. (2000). Northshore Lantau Development
Feasibility Study.
[107]
Environmental Protection Department. (2023). Route 11 (Section between Yuen
Long and North Lantau) EIA Report.
Retrieve from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2972023/index.htm
[108] Highways Department. Major
Works Project Management Office Highways Department of HKSAR. Agreement No. CE 50/2020 (HY) Feasibility
review of Tsing Yi Lantau Link Feasibility Study 3rd Revised
Preliminary Environmental Review Report.
[110] Empson, H. 1992. Mapping Hong Kong.
Hong Kong. The Government Printer.
[111] Cranmner-Byng.
J.L. & Shepherd, A.1964. A reconnaissance of Ma Wan and Lantao Islands in 1794.
Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.
[112] Empson, H. 1992. Mapping Hong Kong.
Hong Kong. The Government Printer.