華南研究資料中心通訊
Fieldwork and Documents:
South China Research Resource Station Newsle�er
Some Suggestions for Research Studies in the Present Day
New Territories of Hong Kong
‧
James Hayes
The Making and Maintenance of Cenotaphs
‧
Ian Morley
《萬載縣志都圖甲戶籍貫冊》
‧謝宏維
活動消息
52
第
52期
2008年7月15日
田野與文獻
中山大學歷史系
中山大學歷史人類學研究中心
江西師範大學區域社會研究資料中心
香港科技大學華南研究中心
廈門大學歷史系
嘉應學院客家研究所
韓山師範學院潮學研究所
編輯委員會：馬木池、張兆和、陳春聲、程美寶、廖迪生、劉志偉、蔡志祥
執行編輯： 黃永豪
《田野與文獻：華南研究資料中心通訊》（季刊） 第五十二期
香港科技大學華南研究中心 中山大學歷史人類學研究中心 合編
香港科技大學華南研究中心 出版
出版日期：二零零八年七月十五日
香港科技大學出版技術中心 印製
ISSN: 1990-9020
通訊地址：
香港 九龍 清水灣
香港科技大學華南研究中心
《田野與文獻：華南研究資料中心通訊》編輯部
Fieldwork and Documents: South China Research Resource Station Newsletter Editorial Office
South China Research Center, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong
電話：
(852)23587778
傳真：
(852)23587774
電子郵箱
(E-mail address): schina@ust.hk
網頁
(Web Site): http://schina.ust.hk
Some Suggestions for Research Studies
in the Present Day New Territories of Hong Kong
(in connection with my Response to the Citation at the ceremony to award me
Honorary Fellowship of The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology on 4 June 2008)
James Hayes
編者按 許舒博士 (Dr. James Hayes) 於1956年來香港，1988年退休，服務香港政府32年。他除了是政府公務員 外，還是研究香港新界社會歷史的學者。許舒博士於2008年6月4日接受了香港科技大學頒授的榮譽大學院 士。許舒博士撰寫這篇文章回應他的院士讚詞。許舒博士的院士讚詞收錄本文之後。 中文撮要 對「研究今日香港新界」的一些建議 許舒 香港新界的歷史為今天新界的鄉村生活帶來了一些問題。「小型屋宇政策」（亦稱為「丁屋政策」） 於1972年開始在新界施行，管理新界原居民的建屋安排。今天，很多屋宇都是建築在原來的耕地上，但明 顯地，建築安排是沒有計劃的，地方設施也頗為缺乏。有人認為這些隨意的鄉村規劃是一個災難，而香港 政府似乎是把鄉村視為異域，置於政府控制之外。 要明白今天香港行政機關所面對的問題，就必要考慮歷史。當年（1972），因很多新市鎮的發展，新 界的村民對很多限制他們建屋的措施，感到非常憤怒。這個新的政策容許居民在他們的一生中，就可以一 次以低於市場的價格，購買一幅在認可的鄉村擴展範圍內的官地，興建自己的屋宇。他們也可以將私人耕 地轉換為可建屋的土地。同時，工務局也批准了一個新型的標準屋宇建築圖則，村民也就不用另外聘請建 築師設計屋宇建築圖則。 政府視丁屋政策為一個讓步，對象只限於新界的村民。村民則視之為一項與生俱來的權利，成為可以 兌現的資產。當丁屋政策被視為「原居民的合法傳統權利及利益」，且由香港特別行政區基本法第40條所 保護時，事情變得複雜。若果維持丁屋政策，一方面要得到地方居民及領袖的接受，而又同時照顧到公眾 利益的話，一些改變是必要的。但強行取消現時的小型屋宇政策，並不可行，而且只會帶來大規模的對 抗。 一些讀者相信可以用金錢購買「權利」。但依我的經驗，妥協是有可能達到的。一些能夠促成協商的 元素依然存在，這些包括對詳細背景知識的掌握。但今天很多行政及處理土地的官員都可能缺乏這方面的 條件來啟動對話，這些官員需要某些幫助去辨認現今鄉村及宗族的需要，從而找出重要而合理的鄉村所 需，在公眾利益前提下出力協商。 陳國成博士曾對粉嶺彭氏家族如何運用「丁屋政策」作過研究。他的研究更顯示新界條例對原居民仍 有相當重要及有連貫性的影響。依循中國習慣法，土地由宗族持有或以信託形式存在，而現在新界，情況 也大都如此。雖然在1994年開始，女性可以繼承家庭財產，新界條例基本上在1905年之後並沒有改變，仍 然是新界鄉村組織與社會的核心，受到新界居民堅決的維護。除了其他學者的工作外，香港科技大學人文學部正面對著一個非常好的機遇，提供研究成果，解決現 在的問題。人文學部學者持續對新界社區更新儀式「太平清醮」的興趣，讓他們有機會與鄉村領袖建立起 密切的聯繫。他們處於一個理想的位置去研究個別鄉村的情況，去探討原居民及地方領袖對丁屋政策的態 度。他們可以研究居民對新界條例的看法，尤應關注年青一代，包括那些由海外回來的，或間歇回鄉的一 群，他們的視野比較廣闊，且對地方事務比較有影響力。人文學部學者也可以研究鄉村管理及在2003年開 始施行的「雙村長制」，在一些逐漸擴展的鄉村裡，「外來」屋主及住客的增加，有可能會引致鄉村內的 意見的不一致。 總括來說，我們要把這些工作延續，我希望香港的大學及機構聯同有興趣的學者，繼續這些對今天鄉 村生活的重要研究。這些研究成果對參與在今天新界公共行政的人士，必定有實際用途。
I have been reading the late Kevin Sinclair’s new book, Living Villages, How Modern Hong Kong’s
Rural Legacy is being Kept Alive, published by the
South China Morning Post last December [2007]. This is a fascinating look at how some twenty New Territories village communities, with their now mixed and larger populations, have been responding to change, as seen through the eyes of the persons who are driving improvements in the villages. They are a varied group, and even include an expatriate Briton. Some of their ideas are novel. They have put a great deal of heart into their projects, and I found myself wishing that similar progress could be made with some of the underlying problems which, left over from history, still lie at the heart of New Territories village
life today.
The first, and greatest of these, to my mind, is the Small House Policy, first introduced by the former Hong Kong Government in 1972.＊
On a visit to Hong Kong in 2005, its originator, the late Denis Bray (formerly District Commissioner New Territories), was shocked at the state of villages where there had been much building of houses on former agricultural land under the Policy. An apparent lack of planning, and the absence of services for much larger populations than in the past, [quite apart from the seemingly endless commitment: JH] seemed to him to cry out for action with the mutual agreement of those involved.1
There has long been public concern, but as far as I am aware, the situation has not yet been squarely addressed. Typical of the adverse views which continue to appear in the media has been the article which appeared in the South China Morning Post, Friday, April 4, 2008 (“Departments lack vision, means and will ……”) in which the writer states that “the random layout of villages can only be described as planning disasters”, and accuses the government of “acting as if villages are foreign soil outside its control”.2
Yet the problems facing the Administration today are complex, and cannot be understood – let alone solved - without a look into the past.
At the outset, the Small House Policy was meant to counter the rising anger of villagers across the NT at the many restrictions on rural building imposed by cumbersome regulations, and at the prohibition on building village houses inside statutory “New Town” planning areas during the opening decades of rapid development. The policy promised, and still does, “once in a lifetime” grants of Crown land sites at reduced market rates to male villagers to permit village extension within agreed boundaries, or else by conversions of private land in agricultural status upon payment of premia on concessionary terms. Most importantly, for villagers, a standard plan for a new-style village house had been agreed with the Public Works Department, which made it unnecessary to
employ an architect. The new policies were a major advance in what had become an unsatisfactory and unfair situation.3
But whereas the authorities viewed it as a concession, restricted to villagers, for their use only, and at need, the never ending flood of applicants (and their leaders) have always seen it as a right - one
might almost say, a birth right. It was viewed as a way
to capitalize on their principal asset, land, by selling approved sites and houses to developers and city folk, regardless of all regulations, restrictions, and financial penalties. In December 2002, for instance, a private property consultant told a South China Morning Post reporter that more than 80 per cent of the small houses then under construction were being built for sale rather than for “own use”.4
The situation is complicated by the fact that the Small House Policy may be seen as being among the ‘lawful traditional rights and interests of the indigenous inhabitants of the “New Territories” which shall be protected by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [Government]’ under Article 40 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China adopted at the Third Session of the Seventh National People’s Congress on 4 April 1990. This reflects the more general statements made in the Sino-British Joint Agreement of 1984.5
Yet the problems of planning and services noted by Denis Bray will only get worse if the main problem is not addressed: how to get the New Territories indigenous population and its leaders to accept that, if the Small House Policy is to remain, some changes to it are essential, in their own as well as the public interest.6
A mutual resolution of present difficulties seems to be necessary, given that an imposed
abolition of the Small House Policy without consultation is hardly a practicable step for the Administration to consider without having regard to
the likely consequences, since it could be expected to bring on a major confrontation and widen all the existing rifts.
Some of my readers, deeply sceptical, will argue that money alone will be needed to buy out “rights”, and that negotiations for anything less will be impossible. But having negotiated many village removals and resitings for reservoirs and “New Town” development in my time, I do not necessarily agree, having always found that compromises were always possible if logic proved that they were needed.7
However, times have changed, and the situation facing leaders on both sides is now vastly complicated by many factors which did not exist earlier. Is it even possible to negotiate a solution that will be acceptable to all parties on each side of the divide?
Too long retired, I cannot presume to offer any detailed suggestions. But since, in the past, successful outcomes were, on the government side, dependent in part upon the negotiators having the detailed background knowledge and understanding of the position, as seen from the other side of the conference table, there is every need for today’s negotiators to ensure that they, too, are equally well-informed. This applies not only in regard to the application of the Small House Policy in the variety of situations to be found in the villages, but also to the underlying question of the operation of the New Territories Ordinance, and the extent to which it is still needed by the indigenous community today.8
Yet for perfectly valid reasons, many of today’s administrators and land professionals may - indeed probably do - need help with identifying the basics of village and lineage needs at the present time.9 And
also the needs of the village communities as a whole with their many new “outsider” residents.10
This is where recent academic research has been useful, and as I shall be suggesting below, researchers can assist further.
Endnotes
* As this is an exceedingly complex subject, I have confined the main text to a straightforward exposition of the subject, leaving necessary detail and asides to the footnotes, which are intended to bring out the complexities and (I hope) help to explain them for readers who may wish to follow my suggestions for further research.
1 A copy of his statement on the subject, circulated to friends, is now in the Public Records Office of Hong Kong: ref HKMS 178-1-78.
2 See also note 7 below, which is probably typical of the jaundiced view taken by long-resident expatriate opinion on the present situation and as to [one of] its causes.
anthropologist now at the Hong Kong Baptist University, has shown how the Pangs of Fanling have differentiated sharply between their ancestral houses inside the original settlement and those built outside it under the Small House Policy. Under lineage rules, the first may only pass by inheritance or by sale to lineage members, the second (as and when sites are granted by government) may be sold to all comers if their owners so wish.11 How widespread is this practice, and are
there useful inferences to be drawn?
Dr. Chan’s study is also important for another reason. In supplying valuable information on attitudes and identity, he helps to explain the continuing relevance of the New Territories Ordinance (NTO) for all indigenous villagers.12 This, you will
remember, still allows (in the main) for title to land to follow Chinese customary law, and for land to be held in common ownership by lineage and other customary trusts – of which there are still a great many in the New Territories.13 Despite the changes allowing
female succession to family property made in 1994, the basic provisions of the Ordinance have otherwise remained unchanged since their introduction in 1905. They have for long been at the heart of New Territories village organization and society. But how far are they still needed today?
Amoug the scholars working on the New Territories, those in the Humanities Division of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in particular have excellent opportunities to carry out
the back-up research which is currently so badly
needed to help deal with current problems.
Due to their sustained interest in the Jiao protective rituals which have for centuries been such an important part of NT community life, they have developed close contacts with many village leaders. They are well-placed to research individual village situations, and to explore current attitudes to development and the Small House Policy among indigenous villagers and their leaders.14 Above
all, they may take a look at the New Territories Ordinance, and could provide detailed information on how it is viewed in the villages today, especially
by the younger generation of village people. These include those who have returned from overseas, or are still absent but periodically visit their native places, with their often wider perspectives and considerable influence in local affairs. They could also study village management and the workings of the “One Village Two Representatives” legislation introduced in 2003,
with its potential for future discord as more and more ‘outsider’ owners and their tenants take up residence in the steadily expanding villages.15
In conclusion, furthering the good work which has already been done, I hope that they, together with interested scholars in Hong Kong’s other universities and institutions, will take up these important aspects of present day village life. Their studies would surely prove to be of practical use to those involved in public administration in the present day New Territories, should they so wish. 16
7 Commenting on an earlier draft of this paper, a friend wrote: “I have to question whether ‘compromises are always possible if logic proves that they are needed’. My cynical view is that New Territories villagers have been laughing all the way to the bank, or at least, to quote the statistic you mention, 80% of them have. Once a right is given it cannot be taken away without a lot of pain. And the right to make a lot of money, perhaps as compensation for having been born out in the sticks instead of in a glitzy Island apartment, is one that these folk have been enjoying for years. I heard recently (but forgot the exact number) that there many tens of thousands of outstanding applications by poor hard-done-by villagers wanting to exercise their right and build a house. And the result is an appalling mess of higgledy-piggledy jerry-built houses, thrown up in a hurry and sold before the damp patches appear. I would suspect that there are [now] very few places in the New Territories where the word “village” could happily be applied”. 8 Respect for who they are is also required in any
meaningful dialogue. Also, an awareness of the disruptions and travails endured during the long drawn out development process, and of their major contributions to sport and recreation in the New Territories New Town communities (Great
Difference, pp.102-110 and 119-125 respectively). But at the same time, it is crucial for New Territories leaders and public opinion within the indigenous community to recognize, and accept, that they, too, have to have a duty to act responsibly, and help the government to reach solutions which meet their own legitimate and justifiable needs but have a due regard to the interests of the whole community of modern Hong Kong.
9 This is largely due to the major changes in land management made in 1982, when the responsibilities for land and people formerly 3 For a statement of its aims, and the situation it was
intended to ameliorate, see the late Denis Bray’s
Hong Kong Metamorphosis (Hong Kong University
Press, 2001) at pp.163-167. He was District Commissioner, New Territories at the time.
4 For this and other background information to the preceding paragraphs, see my recent book, The
Great Difference, Hong Kong’s New Territories and its People 1898-2004 (Hong Kong University
Press, 2006), particularly at p. 157, with note 60, and, for the Small House Policy, pp. 108-110. 5 Notably, at clauses 53 of Part II and 85 of Part VI.
The texts of the two basic documents are given in Appendices IV and V to Liu Shuyong’s An Outline
History of Hong Kong (Beijing, Foreign Languages
Press, 1997).
6 Overall, current problems are not confined to the present situation of the Small House Policy alone, but affect related issues, such as the evolving debate over the development of the Border Closed Area, with its large acreages of undeveloped village land and the question of villagers’ rights versus the public interest. Taken in a still wider perspective, it is to be regretted that the runaway Small House Policy is one of several reasons for the long deteriorating relationship between New Territories natives and the rest of the Hong Kong population, in which – among other issues - the latter has for long questioned the privileged position of the former, and resents their abuse of its provisions.
See Great Difference, pp. 166-169, and much else in Chapter 12, in which I have discussed relevant aspects on each side of the divide. Further to the above, and based on a talk given to the Reading Club of the Friends of Hong Kong University Library in November 2007, I hope to publish an “in depth” article on this topic in the December 2008 issue of the Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration.
exercised by a single department, the former New Territories Administration, were divided, upon the establishment of a new Lands Department: Great
Difference, pp.161-162 with related notes.
10 In this context, and because by now so much needed in the expanded villages of today, the requisite planning and services suggested by Denis Bray - may be seen as one of the issues in the debate. Of equal benefit to indigenous villagers and “outsider” residents alike, they would require much professional staff time and public expenditure to provide.
1 1 K w o k - s h i n g C h a n , “ N e g o t i a t i n g t h e Transfer Practice of Housing in a Chinese L i n e a g e V i l l a g e ” , J o u r n a l o f t h e H o n g
Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol.37
(1998), pp.63-80.
12 Cap. 97 of the Laws of Hong Kong. See Great
Difference, p.43 with note 4, and also at pp. 37-39
and 167, 170-174.
13 Dr Chan also shows how the compensation for land resumed from lineage trusts – there were 115 at the land settlement in 1904, owning between them one third of the Pangs’ registered holdings –
helped fund the construction of small houses by individual trust members in the 1980s. But the number of sites that could be made available by government was very small compared with the number of applicants, even after the lineage elders’ screening to select the most deserving according to carefully agreed criteria.
14 Here it should be remembered that there has always been considerable diversity among New Territories villages. To borrow a phrase, one size does not fit all.
15 Great Difference, pp.174-175.
16 An Inter-departmental Working Party was set up in 1986 to examine the workings of the New Territories Ordinance and consider whether any changes were required. Its report was presented early in 1988, but not published. However, much of its content appeared in an article by its able Chairman, Stephen Selby, then District Officer Tuen Mun, which appeared in the Hong Kong Law
Journal in 1991: see his "Everything You Wanted
to Know about Chinese Customary Law (But Were Afraid to Ask)", Hong Kong Law Journal, 45 (1991), pp. 45-77. 附錄︰香港科技大學大學院士頒授典禮之許舒博士讚詞 (2008年6月4日) 在有關香港研究工作方面，許舒博士有著非 常重要的貢獻。在香港新界原居民的眼中，他是 一位會說廣東話、重視中國傳統及地方文化、謙 恭而又值得尊敬的政府官員。許舒博士是一位學 者官員。 許舒博士於1956年來港，成為前香港政府的 「官學生」（Cadet Officer）。他參與香港公務 員行列32年，在1988年退休之時是「新界政務署 署長」。在這32年中，他除了履行他的日常公職 外，還參與、觀察、研究和記錄了過去數十年來 急劇改變的香港社會與文化。 許舒博士在任職公務員期間，曾參與多項對 香港民生有重大影響的發展計劃。這些都是十分 艱巨的工作――在推動香港發展之同時又能夠保 存地方社會組織與文化。當許舒博士在1 9 5 7至 1962年間出任「南約理民官」時，政府正在大嶼 山興建當時全港儲水量最大的石壁水塘，他要安 排受水塘計劃影響的原居民村落的遷徙工作。三 條村落中，兩條在大嶼山覓地安頓，一條則選擇 移居荃灣；侯王及洪聖兩間廟宇亦能隨村遷移。 村民雖然受到水塘興建計劃而要搬遷，但他們亦 慶幸自己的社區可以維持完整。 在1975至1982年間，許舒博士出任荃灣區的 「理民官兼市鎮專員」。他的其中一項工作，是
協助發展在當時包括青衣島及葵涌區的荃灣新市 鎮，今天的葵青區是在1986年才劃分出來的。這 時期的安置工作變得更加複雜，因為受影響的， 除了原居民外，還涉及數以千計居住在寮屋的移 民。政府為受到新市鎮發展計劃影響的村落覓地 重建，而居於寮屋的移民則獲編配公共房屋。同 樣地，所有歷史悠久的及一些新建的廟宇，都在 新發展區內得到了永久的廟址。今天，這些廟宇 成為新市鎮居民宗教崇拜的地方，信眾包括當年 的移民，以及他們在香港出生的下一代。 雖然荃灣已經成為一個都市，但在地區事務 上，原居民及鄉事委員會仍然扮演著一個重要的 角色。在1976至1982年間，區議會制度首先在荃 灣區試驗推行，其成功有賴當時三個鄉事委員會 及地方領袖的支持。當許舒博士在1 9 8 2年調職 時，荃灣社區贈予他「荃灣第一榮譽市民」的美 譽；而那些接受搬遷的荃灣村民，為了表彰許舒 博士對他們的幫忙，他們把他的名字刻在村口牌 樓上，成為村名的題字人。 許舒博士在民政事務署及新界民政署的工作 讓他有機會接觸香港不同的地方社會。無論在上 班時或下班後，他都勤奮工作。在1 9 8 8年退休 時，他已經出版了兩本書及無數的文章，在繼後 的20年裡，他又再完成了四本著作，包括一個南 中國鄉村文化的研究及一個1898至2004年間香港 新界及其居民的報告。他對地方歷史與文化的好 奇心，讓村民認識到自身傳統文化的價值，亦為 他的著作找到第一手資料。許舒博士對地方社會 的興趣，令到很多鄉村精英對族譜及祖先歷史記 錄產生了自豪感。 許舒博士絶對不是一位隠世學者，他把大部 份時間都貢獻給研究香港的學術界，他曾經擔任 皇 家 亞 洲 學 會 香 港 分 會 會 長 七 年 ， 該 會 籌 辦 講 座、海外及本地田野考察，亦出版一本有著崇高 地 位 的 、 刊 登 香 港 及 亞 洲 研 究 的 學 術 期 刊 。 自 1967至1980的14年間，他擔任期刊的主編。許舒 博士亦為有興趣研究香港地方社會及文化的學生 及年青學者大開方便之門。多少年來，無數的學 者都曾受惠於他的意見及建議。作為一位前公務 員，他為學者們提供了如可尋找和使用政府檔案 的竅門。 許舒博士一直以來都強調民間資料，特別是 地 契 、 族 譜 及 商 業 記 錄 等 ， 對 歷 史 研 究 的 重 要 性。在1970年代及1980年代，他在坊間購買了大 量的地方文獻。除了協助美國史丹福大學的胡佛 研究所搜集館藏外，他更將個人的收藏開放作學 術研究及出版之用。東京大學出版了一套兩冊有 關廣東宗族土地文獻的書籍，香港科技大學華南 研究中心亦相繼出版了四冊文獻資料叢刊。對從 事中國社會與文化研究的學者來說，許舒博士存 放在香港及海外的收藏品，提高了他們對這類文 獻資料的認識和使用的關注。 總的來說，許舒博士可以說是地方社區及學 術界的「維護工程師」。但他並沒有忘記別人對 他的幫助，香港大學出版社在1996年出版了他的 工作回憶錄Friends and Teachers，中文書名取自孔
子的說話：「三人行必有我師。」這話道出了他 感謝友人，特別是新界的朋友，給予他學習的機 會。這本回憶錄的書名亦貼切地描述了我們這位 「亦友亦師」的學者官員――許舒博士。 （讚辭由華南研究中心主任廖迪生教授撰寫，並 由人文社會科學學院副院長張兆和教授宣讀。） 許舒博士所輯的文 獻資料叢刊
The Making and Maintenance of Cenotaphs
Ian Morley
History Department, Chinese University of Hong Kong
Funerary architecture and memorials have historically taken a variety of structural and aesthetic forms. In the 19th century, for example, Western mausolea embraced aesthetic forms relating to the austerity and simplicity of Classicism, the intricacy and visual density of the Gothic style, and symbols associated with Egyptology in order to bring a sense of apotheosis to the memory of the departed. Significantly these design styles, and their plethora of reworked forms, were not only exclusively used in the West, but were due to the engagement of colonial activities by European nations propagated in overseas territories in places such as Asia, Africa and Australasia. Accordingly cemeteries in far-flung colonies became filled with often impressively sized funerary structures similar to those found in the Motherlands, and memorials too were frequently constructed within urban spaces of towns and cities so as to commemorate prominent politicians, military leaders and the elites. In some instances, like in the case of the Victoria Memorial (1906-21) in Calcutta, India, a grandiose edifice was erected in such a manner so as to purposefully marry the Baroque European architectural tradition with indigenous design, in this instance the Taj Mahal, as a means to suitably commemorate the life of Queen Victoria, the Empress of India. However of all memorials constructed to augment collective sentiment arguably the most significant in the British and British imperial context was the Cenotaph (‘empty tomb’) in Whitehall, London, a simply-designed structure erected to remember the monumental loss of life generated by World War One.
Designed in 1919 by renowned architect Edwin Lutyens and erected from Portland Stone, a material
known for its aesthetic properties and durability (Morley, 2002: 634-5), the Cenotaph was aesthetically composed as an excursion into mathematical invention so that the memorial could be distinguished from its surroundings in both abstract and stylistic terms. Although superficially giving the impression of symmetry the Cenotaph was in fact designed in a geodesic manner (Hussey, 1984) with entasis, a series of subtle curves branching out from axial points positioned about 900 feet below the surface of the ground and 900 feet above the ground (Lutyens, 1942), the composition therefore forming a globe that in conceptual terms united the underworld, and the ground with heaven above. In other words, its architectural manner attempted to tie those killed by war, and those that memorialise them, with eternal peace and glory.
Figure 1. Edwin Lutyens, Britain’s unofficial ‘Architect Laureate’. Lutyens’ status at the top of the British architectural profession in the early-twentieth century meant his influence was frequently felt throughout the British Empire.
As original as Lutyens’ Cenotaph was, and as timeless and non-denominational as its character can be said to be, a deliberate ploy to not offend the non-Christian nations of the Empire who contributed to the British military campaigns between 1914 and 1918, the true value of the Cenotaph was that it offered a physical and emotional setting at which to grieve the nation could grieve. As James Stevens Curl commented (1993: 316), the need for a national memorial was profound given that the country had lost so much. Importantly though, given Britain’s call upon its dominions to supply men to fight in the conflict of 1914-8, the Cenotaph in London was not just a national memorial but instead it acted as an imperial memorial to an imperial war. It was, in Douglas Haig’s words, a “symbol of an Empire’s unity” (The Times, 10th November 1920). Significantly as well, through the replicating of Lutyens’ monument in hitherto colonies such as Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Canada the memorial structure offered a means to also remember those lost within the Empire by
it purposefully being a focal point of remembrance within such dominions. Not to be ignored too, and of often overlooked worth, the mimicking of Lutyens’ Cenotaph (see figure 2) throughout the empire could not only allow war memorialisation to become a local and imperial convention but it thus allowed for the tying together of communities at opposite sides of the world, and the opportunity to respect and honour this tie albeit through the remembrance of those who died in battle at ceremonies at 11 am on November 11th each year, i.e. the time war officially ended in 1918. Yet as time unfolds how does Edkins’ (2003: 57) ‘trauma time’, i.e. the encircling myth and sacrifice evident in time, change with regards to memorials like the Cenotaph? Furthermore in light of the process of decolonization what standing shall the Cenotaph have in the contest for collective memory between post-colonial governments and their populations at large? How will transitions to the social and political process therefore affect local collective memory and the place of memorials?
Figure 2. From left to right: The Cenotaph in Whitehall, London; Auckland, New Zealand; Hong Kong; London, Canada.
Cenotaphs and Collective Memory
Winter and Sivan (1999: 39) in War and Remembrance in the Twentieth Century claimed that a permanent feature of remembrance is that it is an “ongoing process of contestation”, in part due to the capricious nature of trauma, and the evolution of social and political institutions. In many respects too memorials are also contested grounds for they are the corporeal and figurative sites where tangible and
intangible heritage can collide. In Hong Kong, the focus of the paper, this scenario between tangible and intangible heritage has been complicated since 1997 by the ‘hand-over’, and the consequent unleashing of dynamics regarding decolonialisation, i.e. the jumping from colonial to Chinese government, the push for democratization, and society’s disidentification with many aspects of its past. In this milieu many questions
have been raised about local cultural heritage and the value of particular old buildings and structures in Hong Kong, and how to manage living heritage preservation for edifices firmly grounded in colonial symbolism. So, to be succinct, in light of Hong Kong society’s wider transitions a reconceptualising of its heritage has emerged. In turn this has allowed for the sometimes subtle renegotiation of the city’s past and the production of new trajectories about how the past is to be appreciated. Becoming embroiled into this drama is the Cenotaph in Status Square.
In appreciating Cenotaphs like the one erected in 1923 in Hong Kong, and their meaning, a few fundamental points must be grasped. To begin with Cenotaphs were instituted in London, other British cities and the settlements of the Empire so as to afford an opportunity to formally perpetuate memory of those who had laid down their lives, and to grant a place not to commemorate the end of war but to rather mourn those lost. Of especial significance to this memorialisation process is the time of 11 am and the date of 11th of November where bereavement in the form of a formal ceremony can be focused. Of note as well it must be remembered that those who died in World War One, just as in World War Two, were generally young, had died on foreign soil, had not had
the chance to fulfil the promise of their lives, and many had no known grave. Moriarty (1997) has accordingly noted how the production of cenotaphs thus acted as a substitute for many families to bury their dead, and in such a context the ceremonies undertaken each year on 11th November granted, as much as anything else, these families a chance to ‘lay to rest’ those killed yet never found upon the battlefield through their act of laying flowers at the memorial’s base.
As paramount as the value of memorials can be to mourning those lost, as previously commented upon, in Hong Kong the Cenotaph, the principal British war memorial, has an especially noteworthy yet overlooked significance, as shall now be explained. To begin with the Cenotaph not only has acted as a colonial reference point for mourning those killed by World War One and Two, it moreover has additional local value due to it being the site where the British engaged in a ceremony following their return to Hong Kong after Liberation Day on the 26th August 1945. Landing at the nearby Queen’s Pier the British immediately undertook a formal service at the monument to signify their return to administer the colony from the Japanese (figure 3), and to pay homage to all those who had died in Hong Kong during the occupation. Consequently, every August 26th prior to the handover, not only was the
Figure 3. A ceremony at the Cenotaph in Hong Kong in August 1945 following the end of World War Two and the return of the British to administer the colony.
day made into a public holiday (Liberation Day) but a ceremony of a similar kind to that initially undertaken in 1945 at the Cenotaph was enacted within which two minutes silence would be held, a commemorative form that establishes kinship through allowing private and public recollection to unite. Notably, Liberation Day was stopped in 1997 following the hand-over, and the once official commemorative service at the Cenotaph was replaced by an informal service given by local and British servicemen.
In generic terms the act of memorialising has been expertly dealt with by numerous authors and commonly reference is made to the concept of memorials and their shelf life, i.e. the bounded period of time in which their meaning for ceremonial or reflective sites of memory is upheld (Winter, 2006: 140). As shown beforehand, in Hong Kong this shelf life has in recent years been affected by political transitions and the rerouting of the heritage appreciation path following on from the ‘hand-over’. In such a circumstance the dialectical relationship between the past and society’s cultural heritage capital has become interrogated by a new set of factors, and the meaning of cultural memory altered, a result not so much by the implementation of political rulings but the redefinition of the forces within civil society as it views itself not as part of a colonial structure but now a decolonial framework. These contemporary civic energies have already become manifest in sentiments centring on political regressionism after 1997, perceived obstacles to universal suffrage, the lack of participatory policy, and that much of what is old is under threat of removal, as the removal of the Queen’s Pier in 2006 confirmed. But the Cenotaph has an assured status at least for the present time as it is an unusual monument, a place where people find closure from their grief, a place where national identity is grounded, a site where the narrative of local history is maintained. However, this assurity should be seen to be dwindling with each passing year. No longer are
services at its base official, fewer participants each year take part in the 26th August and November 11th memorials, and the younger generation are largely unaware of the significance of the Cenotaph to the local historical context. While its presence therefore might be viewed with some degree of sanctity by many in Hong Kong society at present, in time as the older generation who most strongly connect with the Cenotaph pass away, and society continues on its ever-onward path how can Hong Kong continue its narrative through the Cenotaph? The answer, I believe, is tenuous. Whether one takes the view of Winter (1995) in that remembering and memorials are part of a subjective mourning process, or alternatively adheres to the perspective of the likes of Mosse (1990) who state that the memorial process stems from nationalist war myths, concepts of the conqueror and the conquered, and the creation of national ceremonial spaces, it is difficult to decipher how exactly Hong Kong in the future shall appreciate its Cenotaph. If it is subjective as Winter suggests then the education of the young in Hong Kong of their local history is vital should the value of the Cenotaph be recognized in future years.
In summing up, it is significant to note that many elements determine a person and a society’s process of commemoration, and the notion of nationhood in memorialisation too. As Edkins (2003: 94) has suggested when it comes to memorialising and commemoration personal and social existence is inseparable, but in the case of Hong Kong the changing political and civic nature of society as shown in this work presents new dynamics and new contests within living cultural heritage, and how memorials of a time prior to 1997 can be viewed. With the Cenotaph being highlighted as a hub of Hong Kong’s past and with its purpose to assist in helping people grieve, and ultimately thus to forget about past conflicts, it would be ironic if indeed the Cenotaph itself became victim to disregard.
References
1. J. Edkins, Trauma and the Memory of Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 2. C. Hussey, The Life of Sir Edwin Lutyens
(Woodbridge: Antique Collectors Club, 1984). 3. A. King, Memorials of the Great War in Britain
(Oxford: Berg, 1998).
4. R. Lutyens, Sir Edwin Lutyens: An Appreciation in
Perspective (London: County Life Ltd., 1942).
5 . C . M o r i a r t y , " P r i v a t e G r i e f a n d P u b l i c R e m e m b r a n c e : B r i t i s h F i r s t W o r l d W a r Memorials," in M. Evans and K. Lunn, War and
Memory in the Twentieth Century (Oxford: Erg,
1997).
6. I. Morley, Examples of Provincial Civic Design, c. 1880-1914. Unpublished PhD Thesis, The University of Sheffield, 2002.
7. G. Mosse, Fallen Soldiers: Reshaping the Memory
of the World Wars (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1900).
8. G. Stamp, The Memorial to the Missing of the
Somme (London: Profile Books, 2006).
9. J. Stevens Curl, A Celebration of Death (London: B.T. Batsford, Ltd., 1993).
10. "Haig message to school children, published in Teachers’ World," The Times, 10th November (1920).
11. J. Winter, Sites of Memory and Sites of Mourning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 12. J. Winter and E. Sivan, "Setting the Framework,"
in J. Winter and E. Siven, War and Remembrance
in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999).
13. J. Winter, Remembering War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006).
活動消息
南沙歷史與社會講座系列
地點：南沙科技園
時間：下午二時半到四時半
第一講南中國傳統宗族組織（廖迪生）
2008年11月20日 (星期四)
第二講沙田開墾與地方管治（黃永豪）
2008年11月27日 (星期四)
第三講黃閣歷史與源流（麥務光
）
2008年12月4日 (星期四)
香港科技大學泛珠三角研究基地 華南研究中心 霍英東研究院 合辦 電話︰2358 7778 傳真︰2358 7774 電郵︰schina@ust.hk 電話︰(86)20 3468 5622 傳真︰(86)20 3468 5623近年來我在贛西地區進行地方文獻的普查與 社會歷史的考察時，發現了一些清代的里甲戶籍 冊。1這裏重點介紹《萬載縣志都圖甲戶籍貫冊》 （以下簡稱《甲戶籍貫冊》）並力圖結合具體的 社會歷史環境，以探究這一文本的形成過程以及 由此映射出來的地方社會變遷。 《甲戶籍貫冊》不分卷，一冊，共41頁，江西 省圖書館和萬載縣圖書館皆有藏本。全書可分為前 言、正文與附錄三部分，以下依次加以介紹。 在前言中，編者說明了「另立一冊之意與移載 不准城居一案之故」，開篇即明確宣稱：「都圖冊 何以另立一卷，非贅也。」接下來繼續說道： 萬邑土客之籍分別甚嚴，客籍各附 於土著都圖之末，而版圖本歸土著，辛 志分別標題，另立一卷，土著憑之，籍 貫清而考試無爭，意良深也。客籍不准 城居一案，原備錄於都圖門，今屆志乘 仍照辛志，另立都圖冊一卷，而客籍不 准城居一案從都圖門內移載於此，以志 系合修，畛域之見自可不存，而相沿之 案必不容沒。故公稟縣憲杜批准移載， 存案禮科。兩籍各守成規，城內寸土， 土籍永不得賣，客籍永不得買，相安無 事，同我承平，豈不懿歟！ 可見，萬載縣存在激烈的土客矛盾，2土著為了自 身的利益和優勢，於是出台了這一文獻。上文中 提到的「辛志」，指的是道光二十九年（1849） 由 萬 載 土 著 士 紳 辛 辰 雲 主 持 增 訂 的 《 萬 載 縣 土 著志》。而「仍照辛志」 另立一冊的「今屆志 乘」，則是同治十一年（1872）修成的《萬載縣 志》。故這本《甲戶籍貫冊》其實是同治《萬載 縣志》的附件。 該文獻的主要內容是詳列萬載各鄉都圖甲的 總戶名單，更為重要的是，各甲戶名下標明該甲 屬於「土籍」還是「客籍」。如果該甲各姓由不 同籍所組成，甲戶名下會加以區分，即注明某姓 是「土籍」，某姓是「客籍」。如果出現無人頂 充的絕甲絕戶時，則在該甲戶名下注明「本圖輪 差」或「本都輪差」。例如，第一種情況的形式 是：東都一圖一甲王興，土籍；五都二圖十甲歐 陽逢淳，本楊逢春改，土籍；三區一圖七甲詹黃 興，本許仁禮，乾隆間頂，客籍。第二種情況的 形 式 是 ： 三 區 二 圖 六 甲 彭 鍾 興 ， 本 彭 廷 ， 審 冊 改，彭，土籍，丁單，鍾，客籍。第三種情況的 形式則有：六都二圖九甲何黑牙，土籍，本圖輪 差；五都一圖一甲李春和，土籍，本都輪差。此 外 ， 如 某 圖 有 附 圖 客 籍 ， 則 將 各 姓 附 於 該 圖 之 後。如，十都一圖，附圖客籍陳、溫、楊、江、 張、吳六姓；二十三都一圖，附圖客籍姚、鍾、 張、王、羅、謝、袁、鄧、陳九姓。 正文之後附錄客籍不准城居一案。對於「移 載不准城居一案之故」，編者作出了解釋，認為 「畛域之見自可不存，而相沿之案必不容沒」， 土客雙方只有各守成規，方能相安無事。而且， 《 甲 戶 籍 貫 冊 》 在 客 籍 不 准 城 居 案 之 後 還 有 記 載：「吾邑二百年來，縣署十房並以清白土著承 充，相約不引客籍，以杜弊端，不保任差役。」 在土著的聯合抵制下，客籍竟然連充任縣衙胥吏 的資格都沒有。 至此，一份嚴格區分土客界限，極力維護土著 利益和全面打壓客籍的文獻得以產生並流傳至今。 不過，《甲戶籍貫冊》擁有如此的完整性、規範性 與合法性，其間經歷了一個較長的過程。 《 甲 戶 籍 貫 冊 》 的 主 體 部 分 即 里 甲 戶 籍 資 料，最早刊登在道光十二年（1 8 3 2）《萬載縣 志》卷四，〈城池•都圖〉，頁12至53。其編者
《萬載縣志都圖甲戶籍貫冊》介紹與解讀
謝宏維
江西師範大學歷史系
於書中按：「今本雍正間里甲冊底，參考歷屆編 審 丁 冊 ， 仿 廬 陵 、 分 宜 志 例 ， 挨 圖 編 載 ， 或 輸 差 ， 或 頂 改 ， 分 別 土 客 ， 據 實 開 注 。 至 附 圖 客 戶……爰本嘉慶十二年奏准清查客籍煙冊，匯錄 其 姓 於 編 。 」 又 按 ： 「 萬 邑 籍 分 土 客 ， 其 來 最 久 。 雍 正 間 里 甲 冊 底 、 戶 名 本 諸 明 代 ， 最 為 詳 備。厥後歷有頂改，乾隆十一年及三十六年編審 印冊，又歷歷可據。其土客之分則恪遵嘉慶十六 年部議，通查禮房考結。自乾隆二十五年起至嘉 慶八年止，分別三單五童，參以各區採訪，注明 土客，以杜爭競。」可見，道光《萬載縣志》的 都圖甲戶資料是以雍正年間的里甲冊為底本，同 時參考歷屆編審丁冊以及嘉慶十二年（1807）清 查 的 客 籍 丁 冊 精 心 編 纂 而 成 。 「 客 籍 不 得 城 居 案」則附於其後，這一案件實際上是因極為普通 的買賣房屋案而起。乾隆十九年（1754）客籍監 生馬之驥、謝鴻儒等買萬載縣城康樂坊土著宋元 菁的房屋，擬建文公書院。此事遭到縣城土著的 強烈反對，經「貢生辛汝襄、汪朝祖、生員韓大 學等歷陳棚民之害，控沮知縣朱封屋，出示禁棚 民往來生事」。乾隆二十年（1755），馬之驥等 人再買縣城花園里唐魁選等人的屋宇，又遭土著 控告，知縣批令馬之驥等不得在城建塾滋事。這 樁買賣房屋案以馬之驥等人的失敗而告終，更為 嚴重的是，這次失敗導致全體客籍從此失去了在 城居住的可能。此案成為客籍不可在城居住的成 例，載入歷次所修的縣志，為後代援引。這一規 定作為一種制度被沿襲下來，直到民國後期，客 籍還沒有在城居住的權利。毫無疑問，編者此時 編訂都圖甲戶資料及附錄客籍不得城居案一舉， 應 與 清 中 期 萬 載 愈 演 愈 烈 的 土 客 衝 突 有 密 切 聯 繫，尤其與嘉慶年間土客學額案發生以後土著嚴 厲防範客籍進入圖甲組織息息相關。3不過，這些 都圖甲戶資料和客籍不得城居案一起，尚未獨立 成卷。 道光二十九年，由於土客衝突及土著內部的 矛盾，以辛辰雲為首的土著集團出台了《萬載縣 土著志》，「客籍不得城居案」附錄於卷四〈城 池 • 都 圖 〉 ， 而 上 述 道 光 《 萬 載 縣 志 》 的 都 圖 甲 戶 資 料 則 未 見 於 其 中 。 《 甲 戶 籍 貫 冊 》 稱 ： 「萬邑土客之籍分別甚嚴，客籍各附於土著都圖 之末，而版圖本歸土著，辛志分別標題，另立一 卷 ， 土 著 憑 之 ， 籍 貫 清 而 考 試 無 爭 。 」 據 此 可 知，原載於道光《萬載縣志》中的這部分資料此 時開始另立一卷。咸豐十年（1860）《萬載縣志 摘要》匆匆修成，「客籍不得城居案」附錄於其 第四卷〈城池•都圖〉，而已另立一卷的都圖甲 戶冊此時則成為其第十八卷〈甲戶〉的內容。至 同治年間重新纂修《萬載縣志》時，我們看到了 一本獨立出來、體系完整的《甲戶籍貫冊》。 《甲戶籍貫冊》和載於縣志當中的都圖甲戶 資料除了在形式和地位上有區別外，在內容上也 有區別。通過仔細核對比照道光《萬載縣志》、 《 萬 載 縣 土 著 志 》 及 《 甲 戶 籍 貫 冊 》 的 相 關 內 容，同時根據《甲戶籍貫冊》所作的修正，發現 有以下變動的地方： 第一，三區十都二圖二甲歐陽生，土籍。道 光《萬載縣志》誤作楊繼宗，《萬載縣土著志》 因之，《甲戶籍貫冊》據保里冊更正。第二，三 區 十 都 二 圖 七 甲 施 麟 祥 ， 土 籍 ， 道 光 《 萬 載 縣 志》誤為九甲，《萬載縣土著志》因之，《甲戶 籍貫冊》據保里冊更正。第三，三區十都二圖九 甲 劉 仁 興 ， 土 籍 ， 住 居 任 家 垇 。 道 光 《 萬 載 縣 志 》 誤 「 仁 」 為 「 在 」 ， 《 萬 載 縣 土 著 志 》 誤 「 仁 」 為 「 任 」 ， 又 誤 載 為 客 籍 ， 且 俱 誤 為 七 甲，《甲戶籍貫冊》審冊更正。第四，五區二十 都六圖七甲鍾仕昌，土籍。前志誤為客籍，《甲 戶籍貫冊》遵知縣照會更正，於十七都四圖九甲 鍾良名下捐考。第五，五區二十都六圖八甲胡再 興 ， 土 籍 。 前 志 誤 為 客 籍 ， 《 甲 戶 籍 貫 冊 》 更 正。 這幾處看似細微的改動實則意義重大，可見 土、客籍身份的重要性、甲戶籍貫與科舉考試的 密切關係，也可見不同時期劃分土、客的標準可 能不盡統一，以及在實際操作中可能存在誤差。 一份重要文獻的一處改動可能會影響甚至決定一 個人、一個家庭以及整個家族的命運。 這些都圖甲戶資料一旦得到官方認可，編入 縣 志 或 單 獨 成 冊 後 ， 其 社 會 影 響 力 就 會 不 斷 擴 大 。 表 現 之 一 在 於 甲 戶 籍 貫 冊 被 族 譜 大 量 地 收
入。土著對里甲戶籍相當重視，其族譜一般都會 刊登本族的甲戶籍貫。銀山周氏的族譜簡略地記 道：「本貫江西寄袁州府萬載縣小南城外，冊載 二區三都二圖一甲懷舊鄉城俗上里銀山村，里遞 土籍周守江」。4嘉慶二年（1 7 9 7）《萬載李譜 提要》為萬載境內李氏聯譜，內載「十七支籍貫 圖 表 」 、 「 城 鄉 居 址 圖 」 、 「 隅 鄉 都 圖 表 」 、 「甲戶表」、「宋元以來府存甲戶冊」、「本縣 續編里遞冊」等。5萬載第一大族辛氏，鑒於本 縣常有異姓和異支影附冒托等情況，「誠恐日久 傳聞失據，或有過厚無識之人誤涉通融收載，必 至異姓闌雜，入廟紊宗，所關不細」。於是「考 府存宋元以來舊冊暨國朝乾隆初年縣冊」，將本 族長房、幼房各支籍貫詳載於族譜中，所有異宗 戶名略載於後，以防冒濫。6這一做法不僅便於 土著區別土、客，同時也是炫耀社會身份和權力 的方式。另，《甲戶籍貫冊》刊印之後，在必要 的時候仍然會增補更新內容。萬載縣圖書館有一 本《萬載縣都圖甲戶籍貫冊》（書口題《萬載縣 籍貫冊》），至少為光緒六年（1880）以後刊印 的。該書於二十一都二圖三甲廖永盛戶名下記： 「本易酉牙，雍正八年改，長園塅土籍，後與客 籍合譜。查廖永盛的裔，光緒六年有成、外成、 才成……止有八人。」編者如此關注廖永盛的後 裔 ， 是 因 為 本 屬 土 籍 的 廖 氏 與 客 籍 合 修 族 譜 。 再，我曾在萬載縣城一家古玩店收購的舊書堆裏 發現一本《萬載縣都圖甲戶籍貫冊》的手抄本。 《甲戶籍貫冊》產生的根本原因在於萬載縣 的土客矛盾，不過它的價值決不僅限於移民史研 究。這份資料對於我們更加深入地瞭解明清時期 的里甲組織、賦役制度、宗族組織、戶籍制度以 及萬載地方社會的歷史面貌，也提供了一些有益 的線索。 註釋 1 這類資料主要包括《萍鄉十鄉圖冊》（嘉慶十六 年）、《宜春縣圖冊》（道光二十二年）、《萬 載縣志都圖里甲籍貫冊》（同治十一年）、《宜 邑修仁鄉奉化二圖丁戶冊》（光緒十三年）及 《宜春宣南圖名冊》（光緒三十一年）等。 2 關於萬載縣及贛西地區的土客矛盾問題，可參 考曹樹基，《中國移民史》（福州：福建人民 出版社，1997），第6卷（清•民國時期），頁 229-230，頁248-259；鄭銳達，《移民、戶籍與 宗族：清代至民國期間江西袁州府地區研究》 （香港：香港科技大學未刊碩士論文，1997）； 謝宏維，《化干戈為玉帛——清代至民國時期江 西萬載縣的移民、土著與國家》，《歷史人類學 學刊》，第3卷，第1期（2005年4月）。 3 謝宏維，〈棚民、土著與國家——以清中期江西 省萬載縣土棚學額紛爭案為例〉，《中國史研 究》，2004年，第2期，頁153-165。 4 光緒《萬載銀山周氏族譜》，卷1，〈都圖甲戶里 遞冊〉。 5 嘉慶《萬載李譜提要》，卷下。 6 民 國 《 萬 載 辛 氏 幼 房 譜 》 ， 卷 尾 ， 〈 譜 餘 匯 載〉。
附錄一、《萬載縣志都圖甲戶籍貫冊》 都圖冊何以另立一卷非贅也萬邑土客之籍分別甚嚴客籍各附於土著都圖之末而版圖本歸土著辛志分別標題 另立一卷土著憑之籍貫清而考試無爭意良深也客籍不准城居一案原備錄於都圖門今屆志乘仍照辛志另立都 圖冊一卷而客籍不准城居一案從都圖門內移載於此以志系合修畛域之見自可不存而相沿之案必不容沒故公 稟縣憲杜批准移載存案禮科兩籍各守成規城內寸土土籍永不得賣客籍永不得買相安無事同我承平豈不懿歟 爰將另立一冊之意與移載不准城居一案之故志於簡端 東隅為東都圖四 一圖安仁坊 建城坊 一甲王興土籍 二甲李欽土籍 三甲鄧繼生土籍 四甲張倫土籍 五甲潘舜土籍 六甲龍際會本易欽嘉靖 五年改土籍 七甲胥祥土籍 八甲易利謙土籍 九甲龍士尚原作士高從乾隆審冊改土籍 十甲袁酉童土籍 二圖集賢坊 康樂坊 龍江坊 一甲辛覲土籍 二甲巢龍綻土籍 三甲彭節孫土籍 四甲王寶土籍 五甲辛延土籍 六甲辛順土籍 七甲 彭希土籍 八甲譚秀土籍 九甲黃日一作日榮土籍 十甲楊錦本王錦後改土籍 三圖興仁坊 一甲楊正興本劉正興乾隆冊改今本圖輪差 二甲辛達土籍 三甲朱文興本常永興乾隆冊改土籍 四甲伍倫 明土籍 五甲張隆土籍 六甲汪鼎土籍 七甲張興生土籍 八甲汪永慶土籍 九甲常庚孫本常唐孫乾隆冊 改土籍 十甲常永生土籍 四圖福壽坊 一甲彭致和本何天棟崇禎五年改土籍 二甲辛建孚本易忠廷順治間改土籍 三甲施興土籍 四甲丁永興土 籍 五甲周戊孫土籍 六甲辛建昌本何天衍後改土籍 七甲朱文盛本劉明睿康熙間改土籍 八甲龍政本易 政正德元年改土籍 九甲袁朝寶土籍 十甲周榮昌本朱榮昌乾隆冊改土籍 西隅為西都圖四 一圖明德坊 錦衣坊 一甲周文土籍 二甲宋文生土籍 三甲龍雲尚土籍 四甲劉相材本劉相童乾隆冊改土籍 五甲鮑祿俸土 籍 六甲甘文土籍 七甲周翟興周復童改周翟童後又改二姓土籍 八甲林滿朝本林蒲牙乾隆冊改土籍 九 甲辛通土籍 十甲龍彭陳本歐陽洪後改土籍 二圖興賢坊 一甲易澄土籍 二甲張世良土籍 三甲王勝孫土籍 四甲郭寵土籍 五甲周辛海本周海順治九年改俱土 籍 六甲謝毛詔俱土籍 七甲郭政土籍 八甲周興土籍 九甲龍廬易本楊松天啟元年改俱土籍 十甲郭聯 拱土籍 三圖南浦坊 宋家坊 一甲宋遠詔土籍 二甲宋瑞洪土籍 三甲宋遠泰土籍 四甲宋遠興本張鑒康熙三年改土籍 五甲宋遠慶本
郭通孫康熙五年改土籍 六甲宋敏土籍 七甲宋朝土籍 八甲鮑繼柏土籍 九甲宋政土籍 十甲宋崇梅本 作崇海從乾隆冊改土籍 四圖建安坊 仁壽坊 一甲楊効土籍 二甲晏應元土籍 三甲鄧賢土籍 四甲李善慶土籍 五甲常自通土籍 六甲陳劉保本陳官 保後改俱土籍 七甲彭未牙土籍 八甲藍盛歐陽曙改歐陽藍嘉慶元年再改土籍 九甲彭敬土籍 十甲周吉 土籍 懷舊鄉 一都待賢下里圖五 一圖大樂崗 新田 上塗泉 嚴坑 一甲晏申本晏申牙冊改今本都輪差 二甲晏甫本晏酉牙冊改本都輪差 三甲高甘牙土籍本都輪差 四甲吳龍 珍土籍本都輪差 五甲易祝土籍本都輪差 六甲易大純本易泰冊改本都輪差 七甲易國衡本易昆山冊改本都 輪差 八甲吳汪德土籍本都輪差 九甲易生象本易黑牙冊改本都輪差 十甲易黑牙本易六生改本都輪差 附圖客籍無 二圖大樂崗 泉陂 下塗泉 大版塅 一甲吳忠本吳忠義冊改本圖輪差 二甲吳文江土籍本圖輪差 三甲唐仲孫居一都塅土籍 四甲唐德興本唐 苟牙改居一都塅土籍 五甲陳瑞興本易茂禎乾隆冊改土籍 六甲唐俊居一都塅土籍 七甲袁任牙土籍本圖 輪差 八甲揭仲政居一都塅土籍 九甲袁秀芳本張秀芳後改居袁家腦土籍 十甲揭奇壽居一都塅土籍 附圖客籍有李黃曹張劉藍溫陳王鍾顏鄭謝賴周共十五姓 三圖高塘 煙塘 塔前 蓮塘 一甲高賢良煙塘土籍 二甲楊大成寄居橫山土籍 三甲劉興漢本易嶽曙乾隆三十六年改土籍 四甲鍾長發 本尹祥綸雍正間改土籍 五甲陳興貴本湯成孫順治九年改土籍 六甲藍永興本高隆孫乾隆間頂客籍 七甲 淩廷綻土籍本圖輪差 八甲劉 牙土籍本圖輪差 九甲高萬牙土籍本圖輪差 十甲劉越蓮塘土籍 附圖客籍羅顏劉鍾陳藍魏七姓 四圖塗口 英山 大東樓 黃荊 丁田 一甲吳大保塗口土籍 二甲吳効力土籍遷居宜春本圖輪差 三甲辛繁興羅伏牙改辛伏牙審冊再改土籍 四 甲易學顏本楊冬智改土籍 五甲張再興土籍本圖輪差 六甲彭進牙土籍本圖輪差 七甲胡繁盛本楊賢韶乾 隆冊改居嶺下土籍 八甲黃貴英山土籍 九甲謝永興本楊辛同乾隆冊改居麻田土籍 十甲楊寅珊黃寅珊冊 改本圖輪差 附圖客籍溫藍二姓 五圖小江西 長江上 石岐 李家渡 小東樓 一甲李奉輦小江西土籍 二甲高元牙居二甲洲土籍 三甲高李保本李閏保審冊改居興江土籍 四甲劉永興本 缺名康熙七年改土籍 五甲吳綻興本吳綻完審冊改東樓里土籍 六甲李吳居塗陂二姓土籍 七甲李繁昌本高 朝漢雍正四年改居田背土籍 八甲李生春居田背土籍 九甲高同齊長江上土籍 十甲李開奉居江邊土籍 附圖客籍無
二都成俗下里圖四 一圖東岐 黃家嶺 麻田 龍嵩 石神廟 一甲聶黑牙東岐土籍 二甲謝茂春東岐土籍 三甲高道孫土籍本圖輪差 四甲宋閏生土籍本圖輪差 五甲 陳玉隆土籍本寄居竹渡土籍 九甲黃益政土籍本圖輪差 十甲陳盛東岐土籍 附圖客籍藍李邱三姓 二圖呼田 棧下 黃土嶺 喬居 正源沖 一甲黃湘土籍本圖輪差 二甲龍瑾土籍本圖輪差 三甲黃瓊土籍本圖輪差 四甲張紀本作張祀本圖輪差 五甲龍瑞遠呼田土籍 六甲張顯祖寄居河池土籍 七甲張顯親本龍張房順治七年改棧下土籍 八甲張顯宗 喬居土籍 九甲藍瑤土籍本圖輪差 十甲張勉土籍本圖輪差 附圖客籍無 三圖多江 石陂 滕宇 一甲李龍滔龍滔冊改本圖輪差 二甲龍永盛多江土籍 三甲龍將牙多江土籍 四甲龍化本龍志冊改本圖輪 差 五甲龍爵孫多江土籍 六甲胡萬興土籍本圖輪差 七甲龍受牙多江土籍 八甲龍岳孫土籍本圖輪差 九甲龍政文土籍本圖輪差 十甲龍元牙土籍本圖輪差 附圖客籍羅吳徐三姓 四圖湖上 龍河渡 南口 獅岩 江口 一甲張義朝湖上土籍 二甲張秀顯本丁秀顯嘉靖元年改居菜園土籍 三甲劉孝童江口土籍 四甲張酉孫審 冊作酉妹湖上土籍 五甲張任敬本張任苟改湖上土籍 六甲張任儒本張儒改湖上土籍 七甲劉和江口土租 里土籍 八甲劉正興本王柯乾隆三十六年改劉子秀後易今名土籍 九甲劉發本何文政正德元年改江口土 籍 十甲王泰南田土籍 附圖客籍無 三都成俗上里圖三 一圖田北 村背 石土 黃田 兩河山橋 一甲龍應田北土籍 二甲袁英土籍本圖輪差 三甲龍鍾華本龍華審冊改二姓俱田北土籍 四甲龍梁舟田北 土籍 五甲蕭廷瑞土籍本圖輪差 六甲袁寶孫土籍本圖輪差 七甲黃甫蘭土籍本圖輪差 八甲黃永盛本黃 元秀審冊改田北土籍 九甲龍興本梁辰秀順治九年改田北土籍 十甲龍羨土籍本圖輪差 附圖客籍張曹謝楊劉五姓 二圖馬步 銀山村 白沙 魯塘 穏塘 一甲周守江銀山村土籍 二甲蕭新盛龍綻真改本圖輪差 三甲王通銀山村土籍 四甲宋榮祥本作宋祥榮本 圖輪差 五甲龍添保龍泰孫冊改本圖輪差 六甲朱紹武居姜田土籍 七甲王憲銀山村土籍 八甲冷元孫土 籍本圖輪差 九甲冷畝爵土籍本圖輪差 十甲王成江土籍本圖輪差 附圖客籍黃董二姓 三圖五里牌 冷家坊 張家塘 村背 江南 澹塘 一甲冷萬明五里牌土籍 二甲張童孫審冊改張家塘土籍 三甲彭泰土籍本圖輪差 四甲張彭龍張家塘土
籍 五甲胡保牙土籍本圖輪差 六甲吳 牙土籍本圖輪差 七甲吳萬孫土籍本圖輪差 八甲孫永興本冷宋 相崇禎間改寄居嶺東土籍 九甲張生保本冷生保審冊改張家塘土籍 十甲張福祥張家塘土籍 附圖客籍田藍陳三姓 四都待賢上里圖二 一圖周家市 郭村鋪 石溪 城塘堘 王家坊 下澤 田西沖 沙灘上 一甲袁未牙土籍本圖輪差 二甲王秉文土籍本圖輪差 三甲周應昌本郭高蘭康熙間改寄居塔下土籍 四甲 王錦王家坊土籍 五甲王增年郭深宏改本圖輪差 六甲黃再興田西沖土籍 七甲彭崇土籍本圖輪差 八甲 郭榮芳郭村鋪土籍 九甲李興周家市及廟前土籍 十甲晏永興本熊計保乾隆元年改土籍丁單 附圖客籍張林巫王傅廖嚴七姓 二圖 上 竹山洞 白洋湖 石笏里 高田 都城 帶塘 一甲黎日明土籍本圖輪差 二甲陽交明楊交明冊改本圖輪差 三甲易旋本易審冊改四都土籍 四甲歐陽瑞 雷四都土籍 五甲陳雷四都土籍 六甲歐陽興明本楊興明審冊改四都土籍 七甲歐陽春瑞四都土籍 八甲 歐陽映祥四都土籍丁單 九甲張福慶歐陽萬和冊改本圖輪差 十甲辛衿本歐陽春生乾隆間改寄居柏樹下土 籍 附圖客籍李黃徐陳廖曾六姓 五都恩仁上里圖三 一圖黃村 小步 桃塢 鬧田 一甲李春和土籍本都輪差 二甲郭巳孫土籍本都輪差 三甲李珠寶土籍本都輪差 四甲劉朋萬頂晏日旺客 籍居水桐樹下 五甲郭童保土籍本都輪差 六甲郭佛生土籍本都輪差 七甲龍本牙土籍本都輪差 八甲秦 文宜土籍本都輪差 九甲李政春本李連英雍正間改今遷新橋土籍 十甲李將孫土籍本都輪差 附圖客籍李朱魏陳王五姓 二圖後塘 村頭 暑往 里壑 一甲秦茂土籍本都輪差 二甲何大朝土籍本都輪差 三甲楊宗信土籍本都輪差 四甲張鑾後塘土籍 五甲 楊德崇土籍本都輪差 六甲劉春牙後塘土籍 七甲袁贊貴土籍本都輪差 八甲秦元甫土籍本都輪差 九甲 歐陽永興本楊永興乾隆間改土籍 十甲歐陽逢春本楊逢春改土籍 附圖客籍謝林刁朱張黃廖韓八姓 三圖吹黎 奇圃 白塔 村頭 竹渡 柴源 一甲易經本楊經審冊改吹黎土籍 二甲丁榮居東塘土籍 三甲袁興倫土籍本都輪差 四甲聞才郎竹渡村頭 土籍 五甲鄧庚同奇圃土籍 六甲黃李興本彭繼榮康熙五年改柴源土籍 七甲袁新學吹黎土籍 八甲聞允 中本鍾萬聲崇禎元年改竹渡土籍 九甲徐希良居橋墩土籍丁單 十甲郭貴儒居橋墩土籍 附圖客籍曾江賴劉魏陳六姓 六都穀村里圖三 一圖谷源 下 高橋 雍江 一甲楊亨土籍本圖輪差 二甲李袁標土籍本都輪差 三甲袁留松土籍本都輪差 四甲楊震楊虔冊改本圖輪
差 五甲周順發高延冊改本圖輪差 六甲楊新言本楊世述冊改穀源土籍 七甲張春茂本袁思志乾隆間改高 橋土籍 八甲李習時穀源土籍 九甲晏湘居東塘土籍 十甲袁興春李興春冊改本圖輪差 附圖客籍曾張鄒鍾鄭劉邱巫沈陳袁廖韓楊徐魏十六姓 二圖緬村 何家邊 桃源 石含頭 一甲張已牙孫巳牙冊改本圖輪差 二甲何辛牙桃源土籍 三甲徐計牙彭繼牙冊改本圖輪差 四甲傅茂牙傅 戊牙冊改本圖輪差 五甲高榮圃本蘭甫明時改緬村土籍 六甲李酉牙土籍本圖輪差 七甲高乞牙本元牙審 冊改緬村土籍 八甲高道孫緬村土籍 九甲何黑牙土籍本圖輪差 十甲李仕俊本晏李孫順治間改李應發後 再改居桃江口土籍 附圖客籍曾鍾巫王楊余陳張黃杜十姓 三圖南窯 上巷 高田 蔣家渡 一甲謝夔甫土籍本圖輪差 二甲陳權楨土籍本圖輪差 三甲陳文南窯土籍 四甲羅萬興本陳顏善雍正四年 頂南窯客籍 五甲陳允南窯土籍 六甲周貴保土籍本圖輪差 七甲陳源南窯土籍 八甲高亮土籍本圖輪 差 九甲宋升良蔣家渡土籍丁單 十甲謝榮土籍本圖輪差 附圖客籍王劉楊三姓 七都緬村里圖三 一圖燒田 霞陂 馬腦嶺 禾埠 岐圃 一甲李伏孫土籍本圖輪差 二甲鄭興燒田土籍 三甲宋榮生本華生審冊改寄居蔣家渡土籍 四甲鄭海燒田 土籍 五甲塗興生本徐興生審冊改燒田土籍 六甲晏新同燒田土籍 七甲楊允齡寄居潭埠土籍 八甲鄭本 燒田土籍 九甲聞仁禮燒田土籍 十甲郭勝孫燒田土籍 附圖客籍林江劉賴刁曾雷巫八姓 二圖北窯 中村橋 梅源嶺 太平山 山田沖 黃村橋 一甲塗旵塗日山冊改本圖輪差 二甲吳佛保土籍本圖輪差 三甲冷朝日本塗朝日審冊改寄居東門外土籍 四甲鄒王陳頂胡未保俱客籍 五甲施將牙土籍本圖輪差 六甲龍鑒丁子牙冊改本圖輪差 七甲晏東牙居官 莊土籍 八甲徐崇禮土籍本圖輪差 九甲楊瓚土籍本圖輪差 十甲晏日昌居官莊土籍 附圖客籍鄺黃魏羅林陳楊郭溫韓江徐梁張李曾王鄧謝黎鍾鄒藍二十三姓 三圖鈐田 紹江 破田 龍 頭 車上 一甲朱亮琢鈐田土籍 二甲朱章潤本朱章保審冊改鈐田土籍 三甲朱廷鈐田土籍 四甲楊燦本楊燦煜冊改 居楊家邊土籍 五甲李應臻車上土籍 六甲朱亮遜紹江土籍 七甲朱亮登本陳丙完順治十年改鈐田土籍 八甲朱亮萬本李顯高審冊改鈐田土籍 九甲朱亮楚鈐田土籍 十甲辛達盛施日盛冊改本圖輪差 附圖客籍蘇鍾張黃韓胡李林尹吳劉十一姓 八都萱村里圖四 一圖石陂頭 五家山 小江邊 深塘 茂上 昌橋 一甲李模土籍本圖輪差 二甲張璉土籍本圖輪差 三甲孫上林居孫家腦土籍 四甲龍雲會本朱會生乾隆間 改居水坑土籍 五甲李遐齡深塘土籍 六甲鄭欽本楊泰興雍正間改寄居潭埠土籍 七甲何再興李蘭芳審冊
