Digging for History

Recent excavations in Coloane village have again revealed the existence of Neolithic communities  who once lived in these areas.  But will further research be allowed to take place, or will development be given priority?

 

In early May, the Cultural Affairs Bureau (IC) proceeded with an excavation of a site in Coloane village, as prior investigations had revealed that there was a high probability of possible findings which are believed to be from the late Neolithic period (New Stone Age), dating back 3,000 to 3,800 years. The site, located at Rua do Estaleiro in Coloane, was part of a temporary parking lot on a private property. 

 

In 2013, the bureau sent an archaeological group to the site and identified that the unearthed area was of archaeological significance. But the bureau has not yet decided whether the site is to be officially classified as a
heritage site and preserved, or returned to the property owner for development.

 

Macau CLOSER spoke to Dr. Cheng Wai-Ming, Head of Research Division at the Jao Tsung-I Petite Ecole, at the University of Hong Kong, as well as author of A Brief History of Macau Archaeology. The leader of a research team to study the history of Coloane and Taipa villages in 2004, Dr. Cheng tells us what potential archeological discoveries might mean to Macau.

 

 

 

“Sand dune site” refers to a raised mass of land along the coastal beach, many of which are found along the southeast coastline of China. Four thousand years ago, the area faced the beach and the sea and was part of the sea shore. The waves carried sand that piled up bit-by-bit and thus eventually formed a mass of raised land, which created a perfect living environment for ancient people. The site made human activities possible as it was quite safe. They had sufficient food supply as they lived close to the sea, and they also kept some distance from the wooded area of the peninsula, where there were unknown dangers. Thus this type of site was the most ideal home in ancient times. 

 

 

I’d say yes for this site, but in speaking overall, it partly belongs to what was found in Coloane village in 1972.  

 

 

It’s worth it, but it still depends on the policy of the government. You can’t evaluate its value individually, or else you reduce its historical significance. The site is only part of a bigger picture. What about the other site under the parking lot, or even the basketball playground? There might be something in good quantity and quality to be unearthed if we extended the excavation up to 200 feet. That’s its value, it’s worth, in terms of exploring. But still it’s up to the government to decide how it defines conservation.

 

Some objective conditions also play a role. For example, if the surrounding areas are full of tall buildings, then all relics beneath the earth may have been destroyed during construction. But now there are only two-storey houses, which means we still have an opportunity to look at what is hidden underground in the future. When you connect it with all the archaeological points found in 1972, then you’ll find hints of a huge social circle, which includes the whole of Coloane village. 

 

 

When a raised mass of earth in red, maroon or even black is observed in the pit, it might indicate that it was once a fireplace for human activities on a regular basis. For ancient people living 4,000 years ago, fires were used for cooking, warmth, and security, or even as part of the production process. As an archaeologist, a fireplace usually serves as key proof of human activities, so it’s our first priority in archaeological assessments. We have to look at carbon particles that show us their lifestyle. If there is a fireplace, there is life. The night fires also helped ward off wild animals.

 

 

Yes it is, unless all records were made and all the relics stored properly before the rain started. Supposing that some antique items contain charcoal, the water would have washed it away or damaged its carbon particles that tell the whole story. The laboratory results would then be different. We have to take cautious measures during the rainy season, such as setting up a huge tent to cover the site.  Generally speaking, archaeological assessments are carried out in autumn and winter, avoiding the rainy seasons.  We only disregard weather concerns if it’s a rescue excavation. Let’s say, an on-going construction project accidentally unearths some artefacts and the project has to be suspended for urgent archaeological assessment. There’s no plan in place at all and the experts have to get things done as soon as possible so that the constructor can resume the project. But on this occasion, that was not the case. 

 

 

 

 

 

It highly depends on the government’s policy. When you find any relics you’re obliged to declare it to the authorities. In the past, some didn’t follow the rules and destroyed them overnight. We’ve heard many such cases, [the Rua da Barca demolition, for instance]. So the owner is to be commended in this case. Otherwise the archaeologists would have had no chance to access the site.

 

Whether we preserve it or not depends on our attachment to it, heritage value is quite relative. For example, if Macau finds a monument established during Kangxi’s reign (1662—1722), we’d be probably be overwhelmed by its historic significance. But in Beijing, such monuments are seen everywhere. I even saw a couple of them left in a garden unattended. I thought of them as precious, but the locals said that there were too many. Geographically located on China’s periphery, Macau has its own treasures. 

 

 

I can’t say he’s incorrect. But when you think more carefully, its value can’t be evaluated individually. You can’t exclude its surrounding areas, there might be some other sites. Each of them is interrelated to one another. So, is it perfect if you build things right after collecting all the relics for record purposes? Should our policy makers stop and think further about the surrounding area? Let’s take Coloane village for example, it’s worth taking a closer look. Macau is now a rich city that has the bargaining power to suspend all sorts of construction and to talk to the property owners, and then carry out a complete archaeological assessment. The same thing happened for the digs in the 1990s and in 2007 in the Hac Sa Bay area. 

 

Together with another professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, we theoretically proved that the collection of buried relics with a 4,000-year history was a huge treasure to be unearthed. They all belong to the same category, but now you don’t even consider a new excavation and extending its scale.

 

 

It’s still the same, even if you’ve made the new digs recently. There are only two to three pits. Each pit area is up to a width of 100 feet. But there is so much potential for further archaeological finds. 

 

 

Now the Cultural Affairs Bureau reserves all rights of management and they could do a better job, though there still is some legal grey area in the heritage protection law to be clarified. Again, I draw your attention to Hac Sa Bay Park, whose archaeological value has been confirmed since the research in 1972. Except the swimming pool that completely destroyed the relics due to the construction, the whole park including its green hillside fields, walking path and the black sand beach, together with Hac Sa village, are all proven to have more archaeological finds. 

 

Fortunately there aren’t any tall buildings nearby. Usually we have to dig at least one cubic metre of soil to unearth artefacts. So if there are no signs for the carrying out of percussive piling, the relics beneath the earth are not yet damaged. The whole village is well preserved for excavation.  

 

Development seems to have been the demand. So I do hope that large-scale archaeological work can be carried out before any large-scale development takes place. The findings will amaze you and could change the future of Coloane. You could consider building a museum after collecting all the data and relics. Then you could develop whatever you want with the rest of the land. This is certainly a win-win strategy. But the thing is you’d make profit later rather than earlier.

 

 

I’m not. First of all, none of the tertiary education institutions in Macau offer majors in archaeology or any courses related to archaeology, not even an introduction. Local students don’t have the opportunity to look at how archaeology relates to heritage conservation and management policy making. What’s worse, none of the local academic institutions host any research centres in the field. That’s not healthy in the long run.

 

Secondly, we have archaeologists in Macau. They all come back with a master’s or doctoral degree after studying abroad but now work for the government as civil servants. They appear alienated from their profession. I’ve been keeping an eye on their recently published papers. Most are pieces full of theoretical analysis. Because of their positions, might they be afraid of the consequences of writing against the position of the government? There is always conflict when taking a government position. Once you become government officials, it’s inevitable for people to be sceptical of your comments in regard to excavation and conservation work and policies. In many advanced countries, professors in archaeology usually take initiatives to carry out research and discussions in the community.