9.
CULTURAL
HERITAGE ASSESSMENT
9.1.1
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
9.1.1.1 The Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) stipulates that consideration must be given to issues associated with cultural heritage and archaeology as part of the EIA process. Respectively Annexes 10 and 19 of the Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (TM) outlines the following:
(i) the criteria for evaluating the impacts on sites of cultural heritage; and
(ii) guidelines for impact assessment.
9.1.1.2 The TM identifies a general presumption in favour of the protection and conservation of all sites of cultural heritage and requires impacts upon sites of cultural heritage to be ‘kept to a minimum’. There is no quantitative standard for determining the relative importance of sites of cultural heritage, but in general sites of unique, archaeological, historical or architectural value should be considered as highly significant.
9.1.1.3 In addition, since the introduction of the EIAO, the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) may request a Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) for developments affecting the seabed.
9.1.2
9.1.2.1 Chapter 10 of the HKPSG provides guidelines relating to the conservation of historic buildings, archaeological sites and other antiquities. The guidelines detail the methods for the conservation and preservation of protected monuments, the method of identifying and recording antiquities, particularly buildings which should be conserved and the recording and grading of the such buildings and archaeological sites. The process of monuments and development control through the planning process is also highlighted.
9.1.3
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
9.1.3.1 Legislation
relating to antiquities is set out in the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
(Chapter 53 of the Laws of Hong Kong), which came into force on January 1st
1976. The legislation applies equally to sites on land and underwater. The purpose of the Ordinance is to prescribe
controls for the discovery and protection of antiquities in
(i) Human artefacts, relics and built structures may be gazetted and protected as monuments. The Antiquities Authority may, after consultation with the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) and with Government approval, declare any place, building, site or structure which the Antiquities Authority considers to be of public interest by reason of its historical, archaeological or palaentological significance, to be a monument, historical building, archaeological or palaentological site or structure.
(ii) Once declared a site of public interest, no person may undertake acts, which are prohibited under the Ordinance, such as to demolish or carry on building or other works, unless a permit is obtained from the Antiquities Authority.
(iii) For archaeological sites, all relics dated prior to 1800 AD belong to the Hong Kong Government. Archaeological sites are classified into three categories, as follows:
¨ Designated – those that have been declared as monuments and are to be protected and conserved at all costs;
¨ Administrative Protection – those which are considered to be of significant value but which are not declared as monuments and should be either protected, or if found not possible to protect these sites then salvaged; and
¨ Monitored – those which are of lesser significance or whose potential is not fully assessed which should not be disturbed with the exception of minor works if they are permitted and monitored by AMO.
(iv) The Legislation sets out the procedures for the issuing of Licences to Excavate and Search for Antiquities, the effect of which is to forbid all such activities being undertaken without such a licence. It also provides for the penalties exacted for infringement of the Ordinance, including fines and imprisonment.
9.1.3.2 The Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department is part of the Government Secretariat and comprises the executive arm of the Antiquities Authority. The Antiquities and Monuments Office services the Antiquities Advisory Board who are responsible for advising the Government on sites which merit protection. The office further has responsibility for the protection of buildings and items of historical interest and areas of archaeological significance.
9.1.4.1 The AMO provide guidelines and Criteria for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CCHIA) which stress that preservation in totality must be taken as the first priority. Projects undertaken are not to cause excessive impact on archaeologically and historically important sites unless there are adequate protection or mitigation measures or a satisfactory rescue plan is proposed.
9.1.4.2 The AMO considers all buildings and structures in the following categories to be historical and deserving of consideration for preservation:
¨ all pre-1950 buildings and
structures; and
¨ selected post-1950 buildings and
structures of high architectural and historical significance and interest.
9.1.4.3 Once identified as having the potential for conservation, buildings are entered into the record. They are then graded by AMO to show their relative value. Evaluation is based on the following criteria:
¨ outstanding architectural merits -
especially features emphasising certain period, technological and artistic
merits;
¨ special historical interest -
accommodating important civic or social function, for example, ancestral halls,
religious buildings, post offices, city halls, courts of law, railways station,
etc;
¨ associations - with important events
or well-known persons; and
¨ group value - especially in historic
villages.
9.1.4.4 Archaeological sites are identified and recorded by the AMO as they are revealed through systematic survey, casual finding and/or the EIA process. All such archaeological sites are considered to be of cultural heritage value and their preservation in totality is taken as the primary aim of the EIA process. The CHIA stipulate that if this is not possible, amelioration must be achieved by reduction of potential impacts and preservation achieved by means of detailed cartographic and photographic survey or preservation of an archaeological site “by record”, i.e. through excavation to extract the maximum data as the very last resort. The search for and excavation of all archaeological material requires a license from the Antiquities Authority.
9.1.5.1 The AMO issue Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) which details the standard practice, procedures and methodology which must be undertaken in determining the marine archaeological potential, presence of archaeological artefacts and defining suitable mitigation measures.
9.2
Objectives
of the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
9.2.1 A Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) must be undertaken in order to identify the impact that the proposed project construction may have on the cultural heritage of the Study Area. The specific objectives of the CHIA include the following:
¨
to identify and highlight the known archaeological
resources, including those under the seabed, and historical buildings and structures;
¨
to
identify and map the potential for archaeological remains in the works area;
¨
to
identify any additional heritage resources in the Study Area;
¨
to
identify any negative impacts on the sites of cultural heritage; and
¨
to
propose measures to mitigate these impacts.
9.3.1.1 The cultural heritage impact assessment has been broadly divided into the identification of marine and terrestrial cultural heritage impacts and the methodology for each of these tasks is highlighted below.
9.3.2
Terrestrial Cultural Heritage
9.3.2.1 The key aim of the terrestrial cultural heritage assessment was to identify any archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed project, identify any activities that may disturb these areas and recommend measures to avoid and minimise any impacts. However, based upon a review of the designated archaeological sites in the study area, as shown in Figure 9.1, it can be seen that no sites will be affected either directly or indirectly as a result of the construction and operation of the project. In addition, there are no declared monuments in the area of the PAFF, the closest being at Yuen Long. As a result, terrestrial cultural heritage impacts will not occur and this aspect is not discussed further.
9.3.3.1 A Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) comprises the following tasks:
(i) Baseline Review
9.3.3.2 The
research establishes if there are records of shipwrecks occurring within the
Study Area and its immediate vicinity, including Hong Kong archives, reports
held by the AMO, examination of old navigation charts, archaeological,
historical and geological publications. Since marine archaeology is a new
research discipline in
(ii) Marine Geophysical Survey
9.3.3.3 A geophysical survey is the most effective method to assess the seabed and subsurface for archaeological material. The following equipment is required:
¨
a marine seismic profiler (high resolution boomer);
¨
dual
channel side scan sonar;
¨
Single
frequency survey echo sounder; and
¨ DGPS positioning system with navigation software.
(iii) Establishment of Archaeological Potential
9.3.3.4 Detailed analysis of the geophysical data sets and integration with the results of the Baseline Review to map features and anomalies with archaeological potential. This enables the design of a strategy for their investigation and evaluation.
(iv) Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) and/or Visual Diver Survey.
9.3.3.5 Visual inspection and assessment of all anomalies identified in the geophysical survey data. A dGPS system is required to locate each dive target and accurately record its position and both still and video cameras used to record features with archaeological potential. Hand held probes and an airlift are used to inspect buried features. If archaeological material is found, the significance will be determined and appropriate mitigation measures will be prepared.
9.4
Marine
Archaeology Baseline Review
9.4.1.1 Practically
nothing is known about the archaeological potential of the seabed deposits in
9.4.1.2 Formation of archaeological sites underwater is mainly due to shipwrecks (Muckelroy, 1978). Since these are random and haphazard events it is difficult to predict their exact location if no written references survive. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence for maritime activity within the study area of the project site and pipeline route to predict the potential for shipwrecks.
9.4.2
Early Maps of the Study Area
9.4.2.1 Tuen
Mun is shown on a late 16th century coastal map of Kwang Tung by
Kwok Fei (Figure 9.2). 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. Tuen Mun 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, 1744. This map is presented as Figure 9.3. These maps are particularly important as they
indicate that Tuen Mun was established as a known coastal settlement from the
16th century. The first map
which clearly depicts
9.4.3.1 The
UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) holds a database of surveyed shipwrecks in
9.4.3.2 The UKHO holds navigation charts of the study area dating from 1853 (Figure 9.5) 1856 (Figure 9.6), 1888 (Figure 9.7), 1899 (Figure 9.8) and 1966 (Figure 9.9). These charts are particularly useful as they may show wrecks which have been subsequently buried or broken up. However, none of these charts indicates a shipwreck within the study area.
9.4.4
Historical Background of Tuen Mun
9.4.4.1 As
early as the Tang Dynasty (618-907), Tuen Mun was regarded as strategically
important by the imperial government, which had expanded its control over south
9.4.4.2 Before
the invention of steam-propelled boats, sea voyages were largely determined by
the prevailing winds. In summer, when
the southwest monsoon arrived, trading vessels from
9.4.4.3 It
is impossible to know with any certainty when Tuen Mun first served as a centre
for overseas communication but it seems to have become very active during the
Tang Dynasty (618-907). This is
demonstrated by the Tang authorities introduction of the special military
defence unit called the Chên. An account is given of the military
administration under the jurisdiction of
“There are two fu, namely Sui-nan and
P’an-yu, and a body of regular troops in addition to the garrison stationed at
T’un-Mên Chên.”
9.4.4.4 The so-called fu was one of the units for training recruits and is an abbreviation for Chê-ch’ung-fu, a fundamental element in the conscription system. The Chên troops were members of a garrison stationed at strategic positions. Since Tuen Mun was made a Chên with a garrison commanded by an officer, it is obvious that numerous ships had been passing through Tuen Mun. This can be verified from both the Chiu T’ang shu and the Hsin T’ang shu. During the reign of T’ang Hsüan Tsung, a prefect of Nan-hai called Liu Chü-lin had once led the troops of T’un-Mên Chên northwards by sea to destroy the piratical band headed by Wu Ling-kuang who used to ravage the area of Yung-chia in Chekiang.
9.4.4.5 As traffic increased, more travellers passed through Tuen Mun and literary men began to learn of the place and its trading activities. Of the literature written about Tuen Mun, mostly ballards and poems, the works of Han Yü and Liu Yü-hsi are most prominent. The latter gave a detailed description of the place in his poem ‘the surging tide’ which he wrote after a typhoon had struck the area.
9.4.4.6 In
736, the Tang government set up a 2,000-strong garrison at Tuen Mun, called the
Tuen Mun Battalion (Tuen-Mun chen). The
garrison was led by “Commander” Sau-chuck-shih, who belonged to the
9.4.4.7 After
the collapse of the Tang, Mount Pei-tu at Tuen Mun was re-named
9.4.4.8 When the Song (960-1279) emperors assumed power, government control in the area was extended. In addition to the royal garrison, an officer was installed whose duty it was to pursue and arrest bandits. A system of administration for the land-locked waters and more remote seas was put into force at Tuen Mun.
9.4.4.9 During
the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368), corruption prevailed within the government
bureaucracy. The former brisk trade
along the coast of
9.4.4.10 One
reason for the neglect of Tuen Mun is that it was no longer acting as the outer
9.4.4.11 The
Nan Han Emperor is known to have been interested in the
9.4.4.12 For a
brief interval in the first quarter of the sixteenth century (1514-1521), Tuen Mun
was occupied by the Portuguese. The early Portuguese presence at Lintin and
Tuen Mun is well documented. The first European navigator known to have reached
the
9.4.4.13 The
local mandarinate at Tuen Mun anchorage, based at nearby Nam Tau, received the
Portuguese in a friendly manner and trade commenced. A padrão (stone carved
with the Portuguese cross and crest) was erected by Alvares at Lintin, though
nothing of it now survives. These stones functioned more as a marker of passage
for later seafarers than as a territorial claim. Such stones were erected
wherever the Portuguese mariners sailed from Mombassa and Ormuz to western
9.4.4.14 Alvares' flotilla remained at Tuen Mun for ten months, finally returning to Malacca when the change in monsoon winds permitted them to sail. While not given much freedom of movement, early traders visiting Lin Tin were not as confined in their activities by the Chinese authorities as they were in later centuries.
9.4.4.15 Jorge
Alvares made two more voyages to
9.4.4.16 After heavy fighting around Tuen Mun, the Portuguese were decisively beaten. In an essay describing the Memorial Chapel of General Wang by Ch’ên Wên-fu he describes the battle:
“some
strangers who called themselves Franks (Portuguese) suddenly appeared. The set themselves up along the shores of
Tuen Mun and Kuei-yung mingling with other foreign scoundrels… Bitterness and
enmity were aroused among the local inhabitants. Dreading the atrocious acts of the Franks,
there was much talk of migrating elsewhere to be out of the way. But most people could not tolerate the
thought of leaving their homes and the burial places of their ancestors. When the tale of their distress was told to
the worthy Wang Hung, his wrath was terribly roused. Ordering his men to make all preparations for
fighting, he himself led them to battle to assault the Franks….
The
warships of the Franks were bulky, and could only be propelled by the wind, but
just then the south wind was blowing furiously.
Fearless yet shrewd, General Wang decided to take advantage of the wind
and ordered the exterminating of the pirates and the destruction of their
vessels. Small boats were prepared to be
loaded with firewood and dried reeds, over which oils were to be sprayed. These were set on fire and launched towards
the enemy. Fanned by wind, the mass of
flame and smoke rushed furiously towards the enemy’s fleet. This unexpected action dismayed the Franks,
and consequently they could no nothing to avert their dreadful fate. Presently the threatening flames of fire were
raging among their vessels. The warriors
of Wang then advanced, shouting battle-cries, and crushed the enemies, killing
every one of them.”
9.4.4.17 After this battle, no more Portuguese resided in the Tuen Mun area.
9.4.4.18 After
the reign of Chia-ching (1522-1566), the maritime districts along the coasts of
Kiangsu, Chekiang, Fukien and
9.4.5
Lung Kwu Chau and
9.4.5.1 Lung
Kwu Chau (
9.4.5.2 The
stretch of sea between Kap Shui Mun Passage, between the
Wan, and Lantau and Lung Kwu Chau was a particularly popular anchoring point
for ships in the days of
9.4.5.3 By
early 1836, the area was in regular use as an anchorage. In December
1836 a party of Americans and Englishmen “[passed] through the safe
anchorage known as Urmston’s Harbour, or Toon Kwu. Till two or three years
past, the opium-laden vessels used to anchor here from July till October
for shelter against typhoons” (Sayer, 1980). During the 1840 Anglo-Chinese
hostilities, the area was used extensively by British merchant and naval
vessels, as they were no longer welcome near
9.4.5.4 In
1857, during the Second Opium War (1857-60)
9.4.6.1 Urmston's
Harbour, sometimes referred to as Urmston Bay or Toon-Koo (Tung Koo) Harbour,
is the passage of water bounded by coast of Castle Peak Bay and the small
islands of Tung Koo (modern Lung Kun Chau), and Saw-Chow (modern Sha Chau) situated
just to the west of Castle Peak.
9.4.6.2 Castle
Peak Power Station (also known as Black Point Power Station) was built at Tap Shek
Kok on the western side of
9.4.7.1
9.4.7.2 Most
opium traders had by this time taken the precaution of moving their opium
store-ships to outlying areas, and many anchored in the region of Kap Shui Mun
at this time (Endacott, 1993). This
situation changed with increased stability in Hong Kong waters, and from later
in 1844 the anchorages at Kap Shui Mun were abandoned in favour of the more
secure hulks in
9.4.7.3 To
the west of
9.4.7.4 Lung
Kwu Chau and neighbouring islets are clearly marked in O Livro de Francisco
Rodrigues, (translated by Armando Cortesão as The Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires
and The Book of Francisco Rodrigues, written in 1514). Rodrigues was a very
early Portuguese pilot, cartographer and captain who sailed in these waters in
the early sixteenth century. Rodrigues was one of the commanders of Alvares’
flotilla during the voyage from Malacca to
9.5
Marine
Archaeological Potential
9.5.1.1 The
historical data presented above gives the Tuen Mun area a very high archaeological
potential. However, this area has been
subject to significant disturbance in recent years associated with development
and dredging works. In particular, the
maintenance dredging for the Castle Peak Power Station within
9.5.2.1 This area also has very high archaeological potential. However, this will have been diminished by the dredging for the existing pipeline from close to the island to the airport. It will have been further reduced by dredging for a navigation channel from the Urmston Road to the larger turning circle at the fuel vessel berthing area which is right against the island, see Figure 2.4. However, archaeological remains are more likely to be present in areas close to the islands which have not been subject to disturbance.
9.6
Potential
Impact of the PAFF Construction
9.6.1.1 The fuel tank farm will be constructed on recently reclaimed land at Tuen Mun Area 38 and, as such, there will be no marine archaeological impact associated with this land based facility.
9.6.1.2 The
twin pipeline from the PAFF will be in a trench which is about 2.2-3.5 m deep, 5
m wide at the bottom with fairly shallow side slopes which will be about 26 m
wide at the surface. Where the alignment
crosses the
9.6.1.3 The dredging required to achieve the trench dimensions will cause disturbance to the seabed and, thus, are any archaeological resources along the pipeline route could be destroyed by its construction.
9.6.2.1 The jetty for the PAFF is positioned approximately 200m from the existing reclamation, as shown in Figure 3.2, and thus, it is possible that the seabed in this area has already been disturbed, as there would have been barges anchored in this area. Construction of the berths will require piling into the seabed which will create only a very localised disturbance. There will be no capital or maintenance dredging required.
9.6.3.1 The new pipeline will connect directly to an existing dolphin. It is likely that the seabed adjacent to the dolphin will already have been disturbed. In addition, the pipeline will follow the alignment of the existing access channel and turning circle which is subject to maintenance dredging every 3-4 years. Therefore, the potential for any archaeological resources in this area will be greatly diminished. However, in areas along the pipeline alignment where there has not been any known previous disturbance, the potential for a negative impact on any archaeological resource which may be present will be higher.
9.7
Marine
Archaeological Field Evaluation
9.7.1
Geophysical
Survey
9.7.1.1 As the baseline review revealed the study area had marine archaeological potential and assessment of the potential impacts showed that the construction of the pipeline trench did have the potential to have a negative impact on any archaeological resources along the alignment, a geophysical survey is required. The geophysical survey was undertaken in June 2002 and the methodology and detailed results are shown in the Marine Archaeological Report in Appendix G.
9.7.1.2 Some 26 ‘exposed targets’ or anomalies were detected by side scan sonar and 10 initial sub-surface anomalies were noted. The exposed targets could be surveyed by a visual diver survey as detailed below. The submerged targets however, cannot be investigated using this technique and thus, two areas (termed SS1 and SS2) (see Figure 9.10), considered to have the most likely archaeological potential, were proposed to be subject to a watching brief. This involves careful monitoring of the dredging operations to enable immediate identification and salvage of archaeological material.
9.7.2
Visual Diver Survey
9.7.2.1 Based upon the results of the geophysical survey and the archaeological potential of the area, a visual diver inspection was undertaken of the 26 exposed anomalies identified was undertaken between 4th and 12th November 2003. The circular search survey technique was used including both visual and snag line survey. Further details of the search technique applied are provided in Section 2.3 of Report MIA Task 4.1 in Appendix G.
9.7.2.2 The visual diver survey did not reveal any material of cultural significance but associated with recently dumped terrestrial or littoral material as detailed in Table 3 of Report MIA Task 4.1 in Appendix G.
9.7.2.3 As noted above a watching brief was recommended for the sub-surface anomalies which could not be investigated with the visual diver survey.
9.8.1 The diver survey did not reveal any material of cultural significance after investigation of the exposed, above surface, anomalies and as such no mitigation measures are required. However, the sub-surface anomalies identified by the geophysical survey could not be examined by the diver survey and as such as a watching brief is recommended. This would comprise:
¨ Dredge operators to be made aware of the potential presence of cultural heritage material. The operators would be required to report to the AMO any unusual resistance and/or recovery of timbers, anchors or other wreck related material. Any obstacles encountered during the dredging that are of timber should be reported to the maritime archaeologist. The obstacle should be avoided and not removed until it has been assessed by the marine archaeologist as to whether the obstacle is of cultural heritage importance;
¨ A marine archaeologist shall be on board the dredging barge during dredging within 25m either side SS1 and SS2 (Figure 9.10 and Figures 5a and 5b, MIA Task 4.1, Appendix G) in the event of any unusual resistance occurring or blockages which requires the dredge head to be bought on deck for cleaning and examination; and
¨ Dredging to cease in the nominated area SS1 after 3 metres of sediment removal and after 1 metre for SS2. A dive survey will then be undertaken to examine the trench for possible cultural remains.
9.8.2 The 25 m radius around the coordinates for SS1 and SS2 is based on the detected size of these buried anomalies and that the shipwrecks anticipated would not be greater than 50 m in length. If a wreck is present it is likely that small components may be situated away from the main wreck and hence cause blockages. Having a marine archaeologist on-board a short distance before the coordinates of the buried anomaly is reached would assist in identifying the possible presence of a shipwreck before the main wreckage is reached. This would reduce the likelihood of the main wreck site being significantly damaged by the dredge.
9.8.3 During the course of the watching brief, if the targets are identified as being potentially archaeologically important, then an immediate marine archaeological impact assessment in accordance with EIAO TM Annex 19 will be required to be undertaken by a qualified marine archaeologist.
9.8.4 The details of SS1 and SS2 are detailed in Table 9.1 below.
Table 9.1 Sub-surface Targets
|
Target |
Approximate Depth |
Depth below sea bed (m) |
Length (m) |
Height (m) |
Latitude |
Longitude |
|
SS1 |
19 |
2.5 |
30 |
4 |
22°21.9263’N |
113°55.3930’E |
|
SS2 |
21 |
(1) |
18 |
2.5 |
22°21.8318’N |
113°55.2557’E |
(1) MAI
Report does not specify the depth.
9.8.5 In addition, it is recommended that any changes, additions or alterations to the dredging method and alignment should be further assessed by a marine archaeologist to determine if any further assessment is required.
9.8.1
Provided
that the mitigation measures recommended above are implemented, no adverse
residual archaeological impacts are predicted for the construction phases of
the project.
9.10
Environmental
Monitoring and Audit
9.9.1
Marine archaeological monitoring and audit during the
construction phase will be limited to during pipeline dredging works in the
vicinity of sub-surface anomalies SS1 and SS2 in accordance with the watching
brief detailed in Section 9.8 above and the MAI in Appendix G.
Bard, S. 1988. In Search of the Past: A Guide to the Antiquities of
Boxer, C. R. 1942. Macau Na Época da Restauração (
Boxer,
C. R. 1951. The Christian Century in
Boxer, C. R. 1969. The Portuguese Seaborne Empire 1415-1825.
Cameron, N. 1982. Power - The Story of
Coates, A. 1980. Whampoa. Ships on the Shore.
Collis, M. 1946. Foreign Mud. An Account of the Opium War.
Cortesão,
A. 1944. The Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires
and the Book of Francisco Rodrigues.
Davis, S.G. 1949.
Empson, H. 1992. Mapping
Endacott, G.B. 1993. A History of
Frost, R.J. 1974. Sha Tsui,
Fyfe, J.A., Selby, I.C., Shaw, R., James,
J.W.C. & Evans, C.D.R. 1997. Quaternary sea level change on the continental
shelf of
Fyfe, J.A., Shaw, R. 1997. The Offshore Geology of
Hayes, J.W. 1977. The
Hayes, J. W. 1983. The Rural Communities of
Hayes, J. W. 1996. Friends and Teachers.
Hoe, S. & Roebuck,
D. 1999. The Taking of
Hunter, W. C. 1994. An American in
Ko T. K.
& Wordie, J. 1996. Ruins of
War: A Guide to
Langford, R.L., Lai, K.W., Arthurton, R.S.
& Shaw, R. 1989. Geology of the
Western New Territories, 1: 20 000 Sheets, 2,5 & 6.
Lilius, A.E. 1991. I Sailed With Chinese Pirates.
Lo, H.L. 1963.
Lui
Yuen-chung, A. 1990. Forts and Pirates -
a History of
Meacham,
W. 1980. Archeology in
Muckelroy, K. 1978. Maritime
Archaeology.
Murray, D.H. 1987. Pirates of the
Ng, P. Y. L. 1983. New
Ride, L. & Ride,
M. 1995. An
Sayer, G.R.1975.
Sayer, G. R. 1980.
Sayer, G. R. 1980.
of Age.
Siu, K.K. 1985. Studies on the Early History of
Strange, P.J. & Shaw, R. 1986. Geology of
United States Department of the Interior,
Minerals Management Service,