The World Parliament of Religions, held as one of the many international congresses at the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago, is often regarded as a significant factor in the birth of religious pluralism in the United States. Equally, it is treated as one of the earliest formal encounters between leading Asian missionaries and American audiences, leading to a wider acceptance of Eastern Religions. Here, I want to briefly look beyond the speeches and presentations given at the World Parliament of Religions and examine the broader presence of a Buddhist material culture at the fair which lasted from May through the end of October. Outside of the Buddhist representatives at the Parliament, an event that lasted only two weeks, what other ways were Americans interacting with expressions of Buddhism at the fair?

Figure 1

• Japan Building (Phoenix Pavilion): The centerpiece of Japan’s exhibits at the Columbian Exposition was the Hōōden 鳳凰殿, or Phoenix Pavilion, a large wooden building that was built in Japan, disassembled, and then reconstructed by Japanese craftsmen in Chicago [Fig. 1]. The Japanese concession building was a slightly smaller replica of the Phoenix Hall (Hōōdō 鳳凰堂) at Uji in Kyoto Prefecture. The original building in Japan, also known as the Amida Hall, was part of the eleventh century Buddhist temple complex known as Byōdōin. The exposition replica, however, was not fitted with Buddhist imagery and ritual paraphenalia, but in the words of Okakura Kakuzō, was “modified to adapt it for secular use.” The building was gifted to the city of Chicago after the fair. After decades of decline, the site was refurbished and re-opened as a tea house in 1935 until 1941. Vandals set fire to the building in 1946, reducing it to ashes. A set of three transom panels from the original building still exist in the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

• Japanese Exhibit, Palace of Fine Arts: For the first time in the history of World Fairs, Japan was allowed to present works under the category of Fine Arts at the Columbian Exposition. Of the hundreds of works submitted and put on display, only about a dozen pieces directly represented Buddhist figures, Buddhist architecture, or Buddhist themes more generally. Japanese artworks occupied two areas in the Palace of Fine Arts, one on the main gallery in the west wing [Fig. 2] and the other on the second floor gallery surrounding three of the four sides of the central rotunda [Fig. 3]. Some of the most stunning sculptural pieces were Buddhist inspired and placed at the front and center of these exhibition spaces. Guarding one side of the entrance to the Japan exhibit on the main concourse was a giant bronze image of a fierce Buddhist figure who often protects the entrance of Japanese Buddhist temples, named Shukongōjin 執金剛神 (S. Vajradhāra)[Fig. 2]. This image was cast by Okazaki Sessei 岡崎雪聲 (1854-1921) and is currently owned by the Waseda University Aizu Yaichi Memorial Museum. A carefully carved miniature replica of the Yasaka Pagoda 八坂の塔 , executed by Niwa Keisuke 丹羽圭介 (1856-1941), was also placed in the alcove in front of the entrance [Fig. 2]. Lastly, a smaller image of Kannon Bodhisattva in ivory, carved by Ishikawa Kōmei 石川光明 (1852-1913), was also positioned at the entrance [Fig. 5]. One the second floor gallery overlooking the east court we find an expressive rendition of Gigeiten 技芸天 (S. Sarasvatī), a minor Buddhist deity who is considered a patron of the arts [Figs. 4 & 6]. This piece was carved in wood by Takenouchi Kyuichi 竹内久一 (1857-1916) and is currently owned by the University Art Museum at Tokyo University of the Arts.

Figure 7

• Japanese Exhibit, Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building: At least one “handsome pagoda” was on display in at this exhibit [Fig. 7]. I have been unable to identify the maker of this object.
• Japanese Exhibit, Horticulture Building: Japan’s horticulture and floriculture exhibit incorporated traditional stone lanterns (dōrō) into its garden displays.

Figure 8

• Ceylon Building (Ceylon Court): The official governmental building of Ceylon, now Sri Lanka, occupied over 18,000 square feet and was comprised of a central octagonal hall with two wings spreading to the north and south [Fig. 8]. The architectural form borrowed from Sinhalese Buddhist temple design in the Dravidian style. Photographs of temples in Sri Lanka were hung throughout the court. Most notably, the main central hall was flanked on both sides by large statues, one of the sedent Buddha in meditation and one of a four-armed Viṣṇu painted in his characteristic dark blue hue. Figures such as nāgas, garudas, and yakṣas were also worked into various balustrades, pillars, and other architectural elements. A model of the Ruwanweli stūpa in Anuradhapura was constructed just outside of the main building, and was apparently “set apart for the use of the Ceylon court staff” [Handy 1893: 112]. After the fair, the main building was purchased by real estate mogul Frank R. Chandler and moved to Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, where it stood until it was demolished in 1958. While the front exterior of the building was commonly photographed, I have seen no imagery of the interior or the stūpa constructed in the back.
• Sinhalese Exhibit, Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building: The Sinhalese pavilion in the Manufacturers Building was positioned between the Korean and Indian pavilions. It was reputedly created “in the form of a small Cingalese [sic] temple” [Bancroft 1893: 1.186, also Handy 1893: 112, White & Igleheart 1893: 135]. The interior displayed frescoes representing the life of the Buddha, which were made as copies from tenth and thirteenth century originals. Additionally, figures of the Buddha were found in the ornamental screen panels placed around the exhibit [White & Igleheart 1893: 135]. I have not located any photographs or illustrations of this exhibit.
• Sinhalese Exhibit, Anthropological Building: The Ceylon Commission displayed a figure of a Buddhist monk and the Colombo Museum, now the National Museum of Colombo, provided a model of the Buddha’s tooth relic, presumably that which is preserved in Kandy, and a reliquary. Notably, a bronze statue of the Buddha was displayed by Don Carlos Appuhamy (1833-1906), a pioneer of the Buddhist revival movement in Sri Lanka and father of Anagārika Dharmapāla (1864-1933)[Handy 1893: 1102]. All of these objects fell under Group 164, which was described as “models and representations of ancient buildings, cities, or monuments of the historic period anterior to the discovery of America” [Anon 1891: 54]. I have not located any photographs or illustrations of this exhibit.

Figure 9

• East India Building: Located close to the Sweden Building, the East India Building was a private venture funded by the Indian Tea Association of Calcutta. It occupied a 4,800 square foot footprint and was ornamented in an elaborate arabesque design [Handy 1893: 128]. The interior of the rectangular hall displayed goods for sale and was decorated with statues of the Buddha [Fig. 9]. Hanging signage advertised “Buddhist Idol [sic].” Additionally, “Burmese pagodas” were listed as on display in the official directory [Handy 1893: 274].

Figure 10

• Siamese Exhibit, Manufacters and Liberal Arts Building: Siam, now known as Thailand, did not construct a separate governmental building, but its pavilion located in the Manufacters and Liberal Arts Building was partly created in a traditional temple style with elaborate sloped roofs and inlaid glass mosaic [Mayer 1893: 10]. Images of the Buddha, framed by floral designs, were carved in ivory and hung at the entrance of the pavilion [Bancroft 1893: 2.220][Fig. 10].

Figure 11

Figure 12

• Private British Collection, Anthropological Building: A unnamed British collector of curios also displayed at least two Indian Buddhist pieces of artwork [White & Igleheart 1893: 424]. One was a Gandharan relief depicting a narrative scene in the life of the Buddha [Fig. 11]. This item was reportedly originally recovered by an officer in the British army. The other item was the remnant of the webbed hand of the Buddha [Bancroft 1893: 643, 661-662][Fig. 12]. I am unsure of the whereabouts of these two items today. The exposition’s Department of Ethnology was under the supervision of Frederick Ward Putnan, the director of the Peabody Museum at Harvard, who was also in charge of arranging the displays in the Anthropological Building. Due to various delays, the Anthropological Building was not ready for visitors until one month after the fair opened [Hinsley 1991: 349]. This might account for the difficulty in finding a detailed directory of the building’s contents or schematic map of its displays (as we find, for example, with both the Palace of Fine Art and the Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building)[for diagrams of the fair’s buildings, minus the Anthropological Building, see Handy 1893]. Notably, while the outdoor ethnographic exhibits on the Midway Plaisance fell under the oversight of Putnam, in reality, Sol Bloom, an adroit San Francisco businessman, was in charge of their installation [Hinsely 1991: 349].
• Foreign Missionary Society, Women’s Building: A collection of “curios” from foreign missionary work was placed on display, of which “converted heathendom has also contributed to the collection a Turkish prayer roll, and a Buddhist rosary.” [Bancroft 1893: 2.285]. I have not located any photographs or illustrations of this exhibit.
• Chinese Exhibit, Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building: Since China declined to participate in the fair due to the recently enacted American laws against Chinese immigrants, especially the 1892 Geary Act, the Chinese presence was entirely comprised by private ventures. Merchants from Canton exhibited Chinese goods at the Manufacturers Building, which reputedly included tiny carvings of joss houses and pagodas [Bancroft 1893: 2.221]. I have not located any photographs or illustrations of this exhibit.

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

• Chinese Village, Theatre, and Joss House, Midway Plaisance: The Columbian Exposition was divided into two sections. The first was comprised mainly of large neoclassical buildings which housed the displays of international exhibitors. Known as the White City (or Dream City), this section was interpreted as by contemporary visitors and modern scholars as the utopian vision of a good, modern life. In contrast to the educational function of the exhibits in the White City, the carnivalesque amusement concession, known as the Midway Plaisance, was in the words of Robert Rydell, the “honky-tonk sector” of the fair. [Rydell 1978: 255]. Under the supervision of Sol Bloom, the Midway was principally a commercial endeavor, populated by displays installed by private entrepreneurs. The Wah Mee Exposition Company, operated and financed by three Chinese immigrants, opened a building complex that housed a Chinese theater, tea house (in some maps erected separately on the southern side of the Midway walkway), restaurant, shopping bazaar, shrine hall, and living diorama of daily life in a Chinese village. The shrine hall, adopting the common American nomenclature of “joss house,” was located on the second floor of the large building in the rear of the concession space. While some fairgoers describe the entirety of the hall as “Buddhist,” photographs reveal a relatively typical Chinese American shine populated with folk deities, semi-historical figures, and tutelarygods. It is very likely an image of Bodhisattva Guanyin was included on the altar, although I cannot clearly locate one in the surviving souvenir photographs. Textual accounts also note an additional display of Yama’s Ten Courts of Hell where different figures are represented in various modes of karmically determined tortures. Although the concession was created for tourists, the joss house appears to have been a fully functional shrine hall. At the closing of the fair, the contents of the joss house were auctioned off, but a few items were sold to the Field Museum, including a set of fortune sticks.

Other exhibits that could have displayed Buddhist objects: Japanese Bazaar, Midway Plaisance; Korean Exhibit, Manufactures and Liberal Arts Building; East Indian Exhibit, Manufactures and Liberal Arts Building; East Indian Exhibit, Anthropological Building; Gunning Collection, Anthropological Building; Cullin Collection, Anthropological Building.

[This belongs to a series of posts dedicated to exploring ephemera that depict Buddhist imagery now lost or destroyed.]

The Kamakura period (1185-1333) was a time of intense religious activity in Japan. In particular, Buddhist priests who promoted faith in Amitābha Buddha, a figure who resided in the Western Pure Land and taught those fortunate to be reborn there, were influential in shaping the future of Japanese Buddhism. The founder of the Ji School (Jishū 時宗) of Pure Land Buddhism, Ippen 一遍 (1239-1289), was among the more obscure of these figures, but traditionally he is given the honorific title, Shōnin 上人, a name reserved for the most eminent of Buddhist priests. He is perhaps most celebrated for his sixteen year period of homeless wandering as a holy mendicant during which he distributed small talismans bearing the name of Amitābha Buddha. A central practice of the Pure Land schools was reciting this buddha’s name, thus the practice was called nembutsu 念仏, “recalling [Amitābha] Buddha.” Ippen sought to encourage this salvific practice among as many people as he could reach. In 1289, he passed away in a hall dedicated to the Buddhist bodhisattva of compassion, Avalokiteśvara, in a small temple that would soon come to be known as Shinkōji 真光寺. Located in Hyōgo, far from the Japanese capital, Shinkōji never became a powerful center of Japanese Buddhism, but it’s connection to Ippen – as it would come to house his remains – would garner it a small bit of local fame.

When foreign tourists first started traveling in large numbers to Japan in the last decades of the nineteenth century, Yokohama was the main port of entry for people traveling across the Pacific Ocean. The port of Hyōgo, which came to be subsumed by its neighbor Kōbe in 1892, was the next harbor that ships used when taking passengers further south along the Japanese coast. The ships would then eventually continue on to China, if not further west or even around the globe. This influx of travelers gave sites around the port of Kōbe more attention, of which Shinko-ji received a small share. For example, the temple was noted as being “worth a visit” by the widely circulated third edition of Murray’s Handbook for Travellers in Japan, published in 1891.[1] It was also noted in Keeling’s Guide to Japan, a popular illustrated guidebook sold in Yokohama at Adolfo Farsari’s shop. The centerpiece for most foreign tourists was a large bronze statue of a buddha, situated outside the main temple gate. At a height of just under sixteen feet, the statue was not as colossal as the Great Buddha in Kamakura, but its placement in the middle of a lush lotus pond made it a picturesque and desirable location for visitors to enjoy. While some sources claim the Shinkōji statue depicts Amitābha Buddha, the iconography suggests Vairocana Buddha, an identification substantiated by Shinkōji today.

Figure 1

• Title/Caption: The Shinkoji Temple, Hyogo-Kobe
• Year: 1920’s
• Publisher: Sakaeya & Co.
• Medium: silver gelatin print on cardstock
• Dimensions: 5.5 in X 3.3 in
• Reverse Imprint: Postcard/郵便はかき

The postcard here depicts the Shinkōji statue atop its pedestal in the middle of the lotus pond [Fig. 1]. To the left of the statue is a large gable roof structure which acted as the main gate giving access to the inner monastic compound. Behind the plastered wall we see the tiled roofs of the bell tower and main hall. The small pond in front was used to rescue and release turtles.

The English caption clearly denotes the location of the image, but the Japanese caption provides more commentary on the religious relevance of the site. It notes that this temple as sacred location where Ippen passed away, a story that would resonate more with Japanese pilgrims than Western tourists. This also tacitly acknowledges the diverse reasons for visiting temples, as more foreign visitors were interested in seeing – and capturing – the picturesque sites of Japan. Like curio collectors they could return home with their souvenir spoils.

Figure 2 (detail of Figure 1)

The large halo fixed to the statue’s upper back, suggesting a radiant glow emanating from the icon, helps draw attention to the calm features of the buddha’s face [Fig. 2]. Without a person in the picture for scale it is difficult to assess that the statue is much larger than life-size; a person standing atop the ivy covered base would barely surpass the height of the square white stone pedestal.[2] The pole to the left of the pedestal appears to support a small round light that is level with the statue’s head. Viewed from the harbor, the city of Kobe and surrounding hillsides were known to cast a delightful glow at night, suggesting electric lights were installed throughout the region. When turned on, this light likely would have cast a gentle glow on the buddha’s face at night.[3]

Figure 3

Figure 4

Unlike many Japanese produced postcards of the time, this is not a photomechanical print made with ink, but a silver gelatin photograph. Thus, this “real photo” postcard was chemically processed as a photograph on cardstock bearing a postcard design. By the early 1920’s several Japanese publishers were issuing real photo postcards as part of their commercial catalogues. Sakaeya & Co., the publisher of this postcard, was based in Kobe and many of its cards depict the environs of the bustling port city. The lion insignia in the stamp box was the trademark of Sakaeya, which was one of the largest distributors of postcards in Japan [Figs. 3 & 4]. Based on similar cards issued by other publishers, this card likely dates to the early 1920’s.

During World War II, the entire Hyōgo ward of Kōbe was destroyed by the allied firebomb attacks in March 1945. Most of “Old” Shinkōji was destroyed and the statue at the front gate appears to have been lost.[4] Temple records reveal the statue was installed on temple grounds in 1760. Nineteenth century Japanese photography studio prints and twentieth century picture postcards remain some of the best artifacts cataloguing this wonderful piece of Japanese Buddhist art.

Notes

*This is part of a series of posts devoted to exploring the development of a visual literacy for Buddhist imagery in America. All items (except otherwise noted) are part of my personal collection of Buddhist-themed ephemera. I have also published my working notes on identifying publishers of Meiji and early Taishō postcards and establishing a sequential chronology for Kamakura Daibutsu photographs.

[1] This statement mirrors the comments of globetrotter Edmond Cotteau, who visited Kōbe in late 1881 and published Un touriste dans l’Extrême-Orient: Japon, Chine, Indo-Chine et Tonkin in 1884, see p. 208.

[2] The height of the Shinkō-ji statue is noted as being 4.8 meters tall. This height is equivalent to the traditional measurement of “one jō and six shaku” (一丈六尺 ichijō rokushaku, often shortened to jōroku 丈六), which was considered to be the true height of the historical Buddha while standing. Many “Great Buddha” images in Japan were made to match this height. Since the Shinkōji image was made sitting, it would be close to twice the traditional height of the Buddha.

[3] The pole does not appear in studio photographs from the nineteenth century, nor in postcards issued before 1918. Another postcard in the Archive clearly shows wires leading from the pole to behind the statue towards the wall (it is missing a light bulb, however). It also shows towering wooden power lines in the background, proving the temple had electricity by at least the early 1920’s. See a cropped image of this postcards here:

[4] The temple website does not currently count the statue as among its current holdings. It is worth noting that a statue of the Buddhist figure Jizō was enshrined in 1936 and still remains on the temple grounds, thus some objects did survive the bombing. I have not found any resource to confirm the statue was destroyed, but it does not appear to be on display at this point. As for now, I must leave the question regarding the statue’s current existence as unknown.

References

• Fujimoto Kōzaburō 藤本弘三郎, ed. 1933. Nihon shaji taikan: jiin-hen 日本社寺大観寺院編. Kyoto: Hinode Shinbunsha. [here]
• Kaufman, Laura. 1992. “Nature, Courtly Imagery, and Sacred Meaning in the Ippen Hijiri-e,” in Flowing Traces: Buddhism in the Literary and Visual Arts of Japan, eds. James H. Sanford, William R. LaFleur and Masatoshi Nagatomi, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 47-75.
• Yanagi Sōetsu, and Waddell, Norman. 1973. “Ippen Shōnin,” The Eastern Buddhist, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 33-57.

During the long period of British rule in Burma (modern Myanmar), the Imperial Post Office of India, established in 1837, oversaw all mail delivery across British India, which included a circuit in eastern-most Burma. Postcards were introduced through the British postal department in 1879 and were first marketed at the inexpensive rate of a quarter-anna. That same year, a popular Indian newspaper proclaimed, “Postal cards are now a rage all over India.”[1]

The immediate popularity of the mail system, and postcards in particular, was not the case in Burma, however. Few Burmese elected to use the colonial mail system (unlike in India, Burma had no native mail system previous to British occupation) and postal employees conversant in Burmese were difficult to recruit. By the 1890s, postcards were still a rarity in both Lower and Upper Burma. And while more then fourteen million letters and postcards were sent across the Burmese province in 1900, more than three quarters were written by non-Burmese.[2] Nevertheless, a viable commercial postcard market grew in the first decade of the twentieth century, centered in the provincial capital of Rangoon (modern Yangon). Most of the early Burmese postcard publishers operated professional photography studios and thus many postcard images can also be found in commercial tourist albums now in personal and private collections around the world. This included the work of Felice Beato, Philip Klier, D.A. Ahuja, and Frederick Albert Edward Skeen and Harry Walker Watts. A sizable collection of Burmese postcards can be found in the Pitt Rivers Museum archive at the University of Oxford, donated in 1986 by the Burma-born artist Noel F. Singer, and the wonderfully digitized collection of Sharman Minus.

D. A. Ahuja

The firm D.A. Ahuja & Co. was the largest publisher of postcards in colonial Burma and continued operation through the early 1960s. Very little is known about the personal life of the proprietor, D.A. Ahuja (fl. early 20th c.), but he claims to have established his business in Rangoon in 1885. It is likely he immigrated from India, along with thousands of other Indians during the colonial period, but his family’s precise origins remain debated, with both Punjab and Shikarpur (in modern Pakistan) as suggestions. The earliest firm documentation comes in 1900, when he announced the change of his company name from Kundandass & Co. to his own personal name, located at 87 Dalhousie Street in Rangoon. The following year Ahuja published a photography manual in Burmese and in English translation, with the latter entitles Photography in Burmese for Amateurs. In a 1917 advertisement, pictorial postcards remained “a specialty” for Ahuja, but his business had expanded beyond photography and involved exporting a wide variety of Burmese goods.[3]

Ahuja produced some of the most distinctive and vibrant color postcards in South Asia. As is noted on the reverse of his cards, they were printed in Germany, then the commercial center of postcard printing. German printers used as lithographic-halftone hybrid process, first applying layers of color using a lithographic substrate and then applying a black halftone screen. Only the final key plate (i.e. black ink plate) carried the fine detail of the photograph. Several of Ahuja’s images were taken from his competitors, including Philip Klier and Watts & Skeen. While Ahuja apparently bought out the photographic stock of Watts & Skeen, Klier filed a lawsuit against Ahuja for copyright infringement in 1907. Klier won the claim, but it appears Ahuja paid for the rights to reproduce Klier’s photographs since he continued to print them years after the lawsuit.

I still remain uncertain when the colonial British post office allowed divided back postcards. This began in England in 1902, but thus far I have not confirmed if this was the case for the Post Office of India. Postcards were first introduced nine years later in British India, thus I assume there might be a lag in changes in Indian postal code.

Undivided Back

Divided Back

Philip Klier

Philip Adolphe Klier (1845-1911) first arrived in Moulmein, Lower Burma, in 1870 and established business that offered a range of services, one of them being a photography studio. By the late 1870s he created a large portfolio of photographs and moved to a new location in Rangoon, the bustling capital of British Burma. Klier’s business continued after his death for about another decade.

Klier produced large format albumen prints of various locations around Burma, focusing on the major cities of Moulmein, Rangoon, and Mandalay. His studio photographs would be inscribed with the name of the locaiton and a stock number while later photos from the late 1880s or early 1890s would also include his name. A large digitized collection of Klier’s work is housed at the National Gallery of Australia. It is difficult to ascertain when Klier started publishing postcards from his photography stock, but it was certainly sometime during the 1890s, perhaps as early as 1890. Noel Singer has suggested the well known German printer, Verlag v. Albert Aust, in Hamburg partnered with Klier to produce a series, Birma Series Asien.[4] The earliest issues (at least, imprinted with Klier’s name) were collages, typically of two or three monochromatic photographs with significant blank incorporated around the images for correspondence. Eventually, this style gave way to single photo cards and then colored cards.

The analysis below is preliminary – there appear to be a wide variety of variants in both the obverse and reverse design.

Undivided Back

Divided Back

Notes

[1] Clarke 1921: 8.

[2] Frost 2016: 1059.

[3] Berchiolly 2018: 113. I am indebted to Berchiolly’s work for the life of Ahuja and Klier.

[4] Noted in Berchiolly 2018: 98.

References

• Berchiolly, Carmin. 2018. “Capturing Burma: Reactivating Colonial Photographic Images through the British Raj’s Gaze,” MA Thesis, Northern Illinois University.
• Birk, Lukas and Berchiolly, Carmín. Reproduced: Rethinking P.A. Klier and D.A. Ahuja. Vienna: Fraglich Publishing.
• Clarke, Geoffrey. 1921. The Post Office of India and its Story. London.
• Davis, G., and Martin, D. 1971. Burma Postal History. London.
• Falconer, John. 2014. “Cameras at the Golden Foot: Nineteenth-century Photography in Burma,” in 7 Days in Myanmar: A Portrait of Burma by 30 Great Photographers, by John Falconer, Denis Gray, Thaw Kaung, Patrick Winn, Nicholas Grossman, and Myint-U Thant. Singapore: Didier Millet, pp. 27-29.
• Frost, Mark. R. 2016. “Pandora’s Post Box: Empire and Information in India, 1854–1914,” English Historical Review, Vol. 131, No. 552, pp 1043-73.
• Imamura, Jackie. “Early Burma Photographs at the American Baptist Historical Society,” Archives, Vol. 4, No. 1. [here]
• Khan, Omar. 2018. Paper Jewels: Postcards form the Raj. Mapin Publishing Pvt. Limited. [also see website below]
• Sadan, Mandy . 2014. “The Historical Visual Economy of Photography in Burma,” Bijdragen Tot De Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde / Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, Vol. 170, pp. 281-312.
• Singer, Noel F. 1993. Burmah: A Photographic Journey, 1855-1925. Gartmore, Stirling: Paul Strachan Kiscadale.
• Singer, Noel F. 1999. “Philipp Klier: A German Photographer in Burma,” Arts of Asia, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 106-13.

Online Resources

• Indian Philately Digest: Postal history [http://www.indianphilately.net/plitph.html]
• Myanmar Photo Archive [http://www.myanmarphotoarchive.org/]
• New York Public Library, Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Picture Collection/Pacific Pursuits: Postcards – Myanmar A-Z and Myanar Life [e.g. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/collections/pacific-pursuits-postcards#/?tab=navigation&roots=29:7bb3ab70-c5d2-012f-c7f8-58d385a7bc34]
• Paper Jewels: Postcards from the Raj [https://www.paperjewels.org/]
• Pitt Rivers Museum [current online collection does not include Burmese postcards, but a selection can be found here and here]

(Note: This post does not discuss Buddhist imagery, but examines the religious imagery of Chinese immigrants at the turn of the twentieth century)

Chinese immigrants arriving in San Francisco in the middle of the nineteenth century would be met at the docks by agents of various Chinese associations known as huiguan 會館. These agents would inquire about the newcomer’s place of origin and based on the response each immigrant would be assigned to a corresponding huiguan association. Because common geographic origins formed the organizational principle for the huiguan, these are often translated as “district associations,” referring to the shared native districts of its members as well as the shared regional dialect, local customs, and close family or clan ties among inhabitants of the same locality.[1] American press at the time often referred to these organizations as “companies,” such as the famous Six Companies confederacy, but district associations functioned in far more dynamic ways than as just brokers for Chinese labor. They would provide social support and economic aid for all of its members by providing room and board for new arrivals, lodging and medicine for the sick, loans for those in need, and even legal council for Chinese immigrants facing racial discrimination. Moreover, each district association constructed its own building to accommodate all of these important functions, often reserving the top floor for religious icons where worship could be performed and offerings could be made.[2]

Non-Chinese observers would frequently refer to these buildings as “Joss Houses,” with joss being an Anglicized reading of the Portuguese deus, “god.” Thus, in the minds of many Americans, a principle function of the district association buildings was to serve as sites of religious worship where incense sticks, then commonly known as joss sticks, would be burned and offered to enshrined religious icons. By the 1870s, white Americans would regularly visit the Chinatowns in San Francisco and New York where these temples, along with Chinese restaurants, theatres, markets and curio shops, and opium dens were considered the main attractions. Not surprisingly, local commercial studios took photographs of these same attractions and made them available for purchase in a variety of formats. Exterior architectural photographs showing the display of Chinese plaques and lanterns adorning the association buildings were relatively commonplace, while interior photographs of the shrine halls and religious icons were rather rare.[3] Furthermore, narrative ethnographic accounts given in newspapers, magazines, and guide books rendered these icons invisible in another manner, by regularly dismissing them as “heathen idols” and “grotesque figures.”[4] Given the American Protestant opposition to idolatry, the materiality of Chinese religious practice was often overlooked or, more commonly, openly denigrated.

Figure 1

Yet, the potential commercial appeal for Chinese religious imagery did not escape all professional photography studios. One of the most reproduced photographs of a Chinatown joss house altar, made as engravings in magazines and on books covers, and eventually as lithographic postcards at the turn of the century, was taken by the San Francisco-based photographer Isaiah West Taber (1830-1912).[5] Entitled “The Five Idols in the Holy of Holies in the Joss Temple of Lung Gong,” the photograph was taken in 1887. According to Taber’s 1889 catalogue, he sold the photograph in both 18×22 inch and 8×10 inch formats.[6] In the early 1900s, this image was licensed by two popular San Francisco-based postcards publishers, Edward H. Mitchell (1867-1932) and Charles Weidner (1866-1940) [Fig. 1], thus diffusing the photograph of Chinese religious icons to even wider audiences. The photograph of five similar altar figures with long beards, richly brocaded garments, and peacock feather headdresses undoubtedly played to the sensibilities that Chinese temples housed garish idols that deemed no further serious investigation.

Map 1

The identification of these five idols does not seem to be discussed in scholarly literature and will be examined here. The Temple of Lung Gong refers to the headquarters of the Lung Gong Association 龍岡公所 (Longgang gongsuo), now known as the Lung Kong Tin Yee Association 龍岡親義公所 (Longgang qinyi gongsui). According to the association’s own account, the Lung Gong Ancient Temple 龍岡古廟 was constructed at 9 Brooklyn Place, in an alley branching off Sacramento Street, in 1875 [Labeled “New Joss House” in Map 1] .[7] A nineteenth century source claims the construction cost over fourteen thousand dollars, and contained handsome carvings and embroidered decorations.[8]

Though similar in function to district associations, Lung Gong membership did not derive from native districts, but from familial clans, specifically serving members of the Lau/Lew 劉 (Liu), Kwan/Quan 關 (Guan), Cheong/Jeong 張 (Zhang), and Chin/Chew 趙 (Zhao) lineages.[9] The grouping of these four family lineages was not accidental, as each name can be traced to figures who played a prominent role in Chinese history during the period of the Three Kingdoms (220-280), namely Liu Bei 劉, Guan Yu 關, Zhang Fei 張飛, and Zhao Yun 趙雲. Moreover, the stories surrounding these figures were dramatized and romanticized in the fourteenth century historical novel the Romance of the Three Kingdoms (Sanguo yanyi 三國演義), further casting them as important Chinese cultural heroes. The historical origins of the association derive from a story preserved in the Pervasive Record of Guang[zhou] and Zhao[qing] (Guangzhao tongzhi 廣肇通誌). This tells of sacred hill named Lung Gong (Longgang, “Dragon Ridge”) that was located near the village of Kaiping 開平 which served as the ancestral home to the Liu clan. The hill was coveted by several powerful local clans, thus, based on the legends of faithful partnership in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, the Liu allied itself with the Guan, Zhang, and Zhao clans and constructed a temple on the hill to claim lasting ownership.[10] According to this record, the first Lung Gong Ancient Temple was constructed there in 1661/2. By 1827 a Lung Gong association comprised of these four clans was in existence in Singapore, a precursor to its expansion to America later in the century.[11] The San Francisco temple, along with it records, were destroyed in the 1906 earthquake. A new building was constructed on Stockton Street in 1910 before the association moved to its current location on Grant Avenue in 1924.

Figures 2-6

Returning to the photograph of the Lung Gong altar, knowledge of the association’s history provides us some leverage in identifying the religious icons. One contemporary nineteenth century article claims the central figure raised above the others is Lau Pay, who we can identify with confidence as Liu Bei (161-223), the celebrated emperor of the southern Shu 蜀 kingdom during the Three Kingdoms period [Fig. 2].[12] To Liu’s proper left we find Guan Yu (d. 220), often deified as Guangong 關公 or Guandi 關帝, the famed military general who had several shrines dedicated to him across Chinatown [Fig. 3].[13] To the proper right of Liu we find Zhang Fei (d. 221), another general who along with Liu and Guan became sworn brothers as dramatized in the novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Religious iconography (shenxiang 神像) of Zhang often gives him bulging eyes, an attribute we can easily identify in the photograph [Fig. 4]. Sitting furthest to the right side of the photograph is Zhao Yun (d. 229), another lauded general who served under Liu [Fig. 5]. These four figures comprise the four family clans that formed an alliance under the Lung Gong organizational banner. Sitting furthest to the left of the photograph is Zhuge Liang 諸葛亮 (181-234), a famed chancellor to the state of Shu. He is easily identified by the feather fan he holds [Fig. 6].[14] While each of these figures have origins as celebrated civil and military heroes of the early third century, their apotheosis took place over the succeeding centuries and were absorbed into what scholars sometimes term Chinese folk or popular religion. These icons, made of carved wood, hair, fabric, and feathers, would have reminded a Chinese immigrant of his or her nation’s rich history filled with tales of heroes exhibiting a conquering spirit.  

Sitting on the table in front of the five image we can see five urns for burning incense. Incense was among one of the most common offerings to religious icons, in addition to food and drink that would be given to nourish them. Faintly visible in front of the censers are canisters filled with thin slivers of bamboo used for divination. Typically these would be used in conjunction with two kidney-shaped wood blocks that would be tossed on the ground and interpreted to understand the will of the deity. Thus, as American commentators were often quick to note, immigrant Chinese had no fixed day or time for religious service, but instead came when they had a concern or problem they wished to resolve. Communication with the deities through offerings and divination practices formed the backbone of daily worship.

While seemingly documentarian in nature, this image emblazoned on Weidner’s postcard heightens the sense of Chinese religious practice as merely idolatrous. No context is given in the caption to identify the figures or state their importance to a Chinese worshiper. Even the specific location of the shrine is erased with the generic “joss house” employed instead. No nuance is given to the variety of Chinese religious icons or religious sites across San Francisco’s Chinatown or throughout the United States.[15] In some ways, this image becomes voyeuristic, a lurid glance into a religious life that was almost wholly mysterious.

Figure 7

Turning to our object’s materiality, Weidner chose to have his cards printed in Germany, the center for postcard production at the beginning of the twentieth century. The Auto-Chrom logo indicates that Louis Glaser of Leipzig was the printer [Fig. 7]. Glaser used a relatively complicated chromolithography process that required multiple lithostones, minimally between 4-6 printing substrates, with each printing a separate hue.[16] This process rendered a high quality print of vibrant colors and deep contrast. When the card was first issued, Weidner was still working with an unknown partner named Goeggel whose name disappears from cards issued around 1904. Weidner reissued his series of Chinatown views after the 1906 earthquake with an extended, and often provocative, caption. For example, his original card depicting a pair of young Chinese girls is captioned simply with “Chinese girls,” but his post-earthquake issue is re-captioned “Chinese aristocrats, reduced to poverty by earthquake and fire April 18,1906.” Several Chinatown street scenes are noted as being “destroyed by earthquake and fire,” while his card depicting the Lung Gong shrine is noted as being “smashed and reduced to ashes.” The wording is particularly evocative of iconoclastic sentiment, suggesting that divine providence caused the earthquake that ultimately halted the unwholesome heathen practices. Curiously, Weidner changed his role from publisher of the first card, to photographer of the second, even though he still used the same photograph taken by Taber two decades earlier.

Both cards bear an undivided back, dating the first to between 1901 and 1904 (when Goeggel departed), and the latter to between 1906 and 1907.

Notes

[1] Huiguan had their origins in sixteenth-century China when Cantonese merchants started these mutual aid organizations in various Chinese cities to help sojourning merchants and craftsmen originating from the same locality with room and boarding, among other forms of social and economic assistance. Huiguan were later instituted overseas as Chinese settled abroad, such as in Singapore and the Phillipines and eventually the United States. Because of their similar organizing principles and purposes, huiguan are often compared to German Landsmannschaft. For the Chinese origins of huiguan and associated craft guilds, see e.g. Moll-Murata 2018, esp. pp. 321-348. For the early history of huiguan in the US, see Armentrout-Ma 1983, Lim 1987, and the more recent Qin 2016.

[2] Some of these shrine halls were not open to the general public, but huiguan buildings would often have organizational halls for various secular functions that also housed small shrines, thus blurring clear demarcations in the use of these spaces for the visiting public. Independent temples, often open to the public, were also constructed around San Francisco, such as the structure at Lone Mountain cemetery constructed by the Six Companies for all Chinese to make offerings to the spirits of the dead, see Qin 2003: 228. Importantly, the distinctions between shrines, shrine halls, and temples is not emic. For example, the famous Tin How Ancient Temple 天后古廟 (Tianhou gumiao), the presumed oldest Chinese temple in California founded in 1852, likely occupied the top floor of the Sam Yup 三邑 (Sanyi) district association building on Waverly Place and was not its own building. Today, the temple occupies the top floor of the Sue Hing Benevolent Association 肇慶會館 (Zhaoqing huiguan) building that was reconstructed after the 1906 earthquake; for more on the worship of Tianhou in the US, see Kuah-Pearce & Huang 2012. Likewise, around 1853­, the Sze Yup 四邑 (Siyi) district association opened a temple dedicated to Guandi 關帝 on the corner of Kearny and Pine Streets, a location that matches its organizational headquarters at 512 Pine Street (address cited in Berglund 2005: 21). The multipurpose use of such buildings in San Francisco can also be found in New York City, where the Chinatown “city hall” at 16 Mott Street housed the Fan Tan Hong (“Fan Tan Syndicate”), the Quong Ying Lung Company (a mercantile establishment), the Sing Me Hong (a laundryman union), the meeting hall of the Mee Shing Kung Saw, and a shrine hall to Guandi on the top floor, see Maffi 1995. Nineteenth century maps and Chinatown guidebooks would often simply refer to these buildings as Joss Houses or temples, even though the activities engaged therein would vary considerably, see for example the 1885 “Official Map of ‘Chinatown’ in San Francisco” in the David Rumsey collection which depicts thirteen different Joss Houses of which only two are denoted as belonging to particular district associations. In 1892, Methodist pastor Frederick Masters counted a total of fifteen “heathen temples” in San Francisco, but more regularly assigned them to particular organizations, see Masters 1892.

[3] Eadweard J. Muybridge (1830-1904) was among the earliest photographers to take an interior photograph of a Chinatown joss house. The photographs were as part of a series of stereoviews of the Pacific Coast bearing the sequential numbers of 840-847. One stereoview (#843; held by the Getty Museum), dated to about 1870, shows three figures behind a joss house altar, with the central icon representing the Emperor of the North 北帝. The editors of the Chinese in Northwest America Research Committee website believe this photograph to depict the interior of the Tung Wah Temple 東華廟 (Donghua miao) once located on Dupont Street; see https://www.cinarc.org/Shrines.html#anchor_331. Carlton Watkins (1829-1916) was another professional San Francisco-based photographer who took another early stereophotograph of the entrance of an unknown joss house, see http://www.carletonwatkins.org/getviewbyid.php?id=1003485.

[4] Many of the more robust descriptions of nineteenth century Chinese temples in America were offered by protestant ministers such as Augustus Ward Loomis, Otis Gibson, and William Speer, see Maffly-Kipp 2005. The quote of “heathen idols” here was taken from the comments of Gibson, see Berglund 2005: 23. “Grotesque idols” was taken from an anonymous newspaper article entitled “The Joss-House,” see Anonymous 1878.

[5] The photograph was rendered into full page engraving accompanying “The Chinese Joss-House,” in Frank Leslie’s Sunday Magazine, April 1888, p. 312. The article notes that Taber used a calcium light to produce sufficient interior illumination to make the exposure. It can also be found in Florence V. Hughes’ “San Francisco’s Chinatown,” in The Golden Rule, May 20, 1897, p. 688 (also see the illustration in Masters 1892: 735). The image was also used as the cover illustration for William Bode’s Lights and Shadows of Chinatown, see Maffly-Kipp 2005: 85-6.

[6] Taber 1889: 5-6. Taber also sold an interior photograph of the Hop Wo 合和 (Hehe) temple showing the image of Kwang Koong 關公 (Guangong).

[7] See Zhao undated. For further passing mention of this association, see Lim 1987: 31-2 and Qin 2016: 36. According to Masters, this temple was a few doors down from the Kum Fa 金花 (Jinhua) temple, also on Brooklyn Place, see Masters 1892: 737-9. Both of these temples are see on the 1885 Chinatown map in the David Rumsey collection, see footnote above.

[8] Masters 1892: 739. Taber took anohter photograph of the Lung Gong incense table [see here]. Regrettably, I have been unable to identify an exterior photographs or illustrations of this building.

[9] Since many Chinese villages were comprised of members of the same family linage and possessed the same surname, family associations and district associations were organized on similar principles in practice. For the minor differences between huiguan and gongsuo see Moll-Murata 2018.

[10] See Liu undated and Lim 1987: 48-9n.61.

[11] Lim 1987: 32.

[12] Masters 1892: 739.

[13] Known since the seventeenth century as the “Saint (or God) of War” (wusheng 武聖) and honored for his loyalty (zhong 忠) and bravery (yong 勇), a deified Guan Yu was widely celebrated among immigrant Chinese. The Ning Yeung甯陽 (Ningyang) district association joss house, widely described as the finest in Chinatown, was dedicated to Guangong, see Andrews 1870: 470 and Masters 1892: 728-32 (the temple apparently moved between these two descriptions, from Broadway to Waverly). The Hop Wo and Kong Chow (formerly part of the Sze Yup) associations also had shrines dedicated to Guangong, see footnotes above.

[14] Further information about the background stories and iconography of the images can be found in Stevens 1997: 145-50.

[15] This point is made more forcefully in Maffly-Kipp 2005.

[16] I estimate six or seven color lithostones were used in addition to the black key plate in our specimen. Chinatown is the subject in these Weidner postcards (using stock numbers printed on the obverse or reverse of the cards): 14, 15, 16, 21, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 140, 142, 156, 162, 190, 458, 459, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 690, 694. The cards issued before the 1906 earthquake have at least four designs in total: 1) credit printed on obverse as “Goeggel & Weidner, Publishers”; 2) credit as “Charles Weidner, Photographer”; 3) added reference to earthquake in caption; 4) place credit on reverse (with divided back).

References

• Andrews, Sidney. 1870. “The Gods of Wo Lee,” Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 25 (April), pp. 469-79.
• Anonymous. 1878. “The Joss-House,” Chicago Daily Tribune (September 1), p. 16.
• Armentrout-Ma, Eve. 1983. “Urban Chinese at the Sinitic Frontier: Social Organizations in United States’ Chinatowns, 1849-1898,” Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 107-135.
• Berglund, Barbara. 2005. “Chinatown’s Tourist Terrain: Representation and Racialization in Nineteenth-Century San Francisco,” American Studies, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 5-36.
• Kuah-Pearce, Khun Eng and Huang, Yedan. 2012. “The Flow of the Traders’ Goddess: Tianhou in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century America,” in Narratives of Free Trade: The Commercial Cultures of Early US-China Relations, eds., Kendall Johnson. Honk Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 163-76.
• Lai, Him Mark. 1987. “Historical Development of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association/Huiguan System’, in Chinese America: History and Perspectives, ed. Chinese historical Society of America, San Francisco: San Francisco State University, pp. 13-51.
• Liu Weisen 劉偉森. Undated. “Longgang shilüe ji sixing yuanyuan” 龍岡史略及四姓淵源 [A Brief History of Longgang and the Origins of the Four Families], May 20, 2020, https://www.palungkong.org/LK%20history.htm.
• Maffly-Kipp, Laurie. 2005. “Engaging Habits and Besotted Idolatry: Viewing Chinese Religions in the American West,” Material Religion, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 72-96.
• Masters, Frederick J. 1892. “Pagan Temples in San Francisco,” The Californian Illustrated Magazine, Vol. 2 (November), pp. 727–41.
• Maffi, Mario. 1995. Gateway to the Promised Land: Ethnic Cultures in New York’s Lower East Side. New York: New York University Press.
• Moll-Murata, Christine. 2018. State and Crafts in the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
• Qin, Yucheng. 2003. “A Century-old ‘Puzzle’: The Six Companies’ Role in Chinese Labor Importation in the Nineteenth Century,” The Journal of American-East Asian Relations, Vol. 12, No. 3/4, pp. 225-254.
• Qin, Yucheng. 2016. The Cultural Clash: Chinese Traditional Native-Place Sentiment and the Anti-Chinese Movement. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Stevens, Keith. 1997. Chinese Gods: The Unseen Worlds of Spirits and Demons. London: Collins & Brown.
• Taber, Isaiah W. 1889. Catalogue: Pacific Coast Scenery. Alaska to Mexico. Views, Albums, Transparencies, Etc. Oakland: Oakland Tribune Publishing Company. [viewable here]
• Zhao Zhengzheng 趙錚錚. Undated. “Meiguo yu sanfanshi longagn qinyi gongsuo jianjie” 美國與三藩市龍岡親義公所簡介 [A Brief Introduction to the Long Kong Tin Yi Association of American and San Francisco], May 20, 2020, https://www.palungkong.org/usa-sf%20history.htm.

I once thought that a good university instructor was simply a captivating lecturer. Being a skilled orator is undoubtedly useful for teaching, especially for larger audiences, but I now see it as single tool in any instructor’s toolkit. A good university instructor is someone who has developed a whole repertoire of in-class teaching tools and uses them in the appropriate situation, depending on the instructor’s educational purpose and particular audience.

Below is a list of tips I’ve commonly referenced when working with early-career university instructors. Broadly they represent a move away from