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
Hōōden (Phoenix Pavilion) on Wooden Isle at the 1893 Columbian Exposition
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 paraphernalia, 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
Front entrance to the Japanese exhibit in the West Court of the Palace of Fine Arts
Figure 3
Japanese exhibit on the second floor gallery of the East Court (note the entwined flags of Japan)
Figure 4
Japanese exhibit on the second floor gallery of the East Court
Figure5
Kannon (Ishikawa Kōmei)
Figure 6
Gigeiten (Takenouchi Kyuichi)
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, 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
Stereoscopic view of the Japanese exhibit in the Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building
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)
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 seated 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
Interior of the East India Building
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 at the Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building
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
Gandharan Buddhist relief on display in the Anthropology Building
Figure 12
Stone carving of the Buddha’s hand in the Anthropology Building
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, a 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
Exterior of the Chinese Village on the Midway Plaisance
Figure 14
Interior of the Joss House
Figure 15
Interior of the Joss House
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 fair-goers describe the entirety of the hall as “Buddhist,” photographs reveal a relatively typical Chinese American shine populated with folk deities, semi-historical figures, and tutelary gods. 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.
During the long period of British rule in Burma (modern Myanmar), the Imperial Post Office of India 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 than 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). Many 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
Reverse of Ahuja studio carte-de-viste mounting card. Ahuja was at this address from approx. 1906-1920.
The firm D.A. Ahuja & Co. was the largest publisher of postcards in colonial Burma and continued operation through the late 1950s. Very little is known about the personal life of the proprietor, D.A. Ahuja (c.1865–c.1939), 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 entitled 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 a 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
Type 1: This is the only undivided back design I have seen from Ahuja, printed in a distinctive evergreen color. It cannot predate his business name change in 1900. I have not seen any examples with a printed stamp box. Note that the design is similar to the undivide Klier card. The obverse always leaves a small portion of the card on the bottom (for both vertical and horizontally oriented photographs) blank for correspondence. The photograph is otherwise bled to the edges of the card. The caption uses red ink with an italicized front.
Divided Back
Type 2: I presume this to be the earliest divided back design of Ahuja cards since it follows the undivided back design so closely. Again, I have not seen any examples with a printed stamp box. Significantly, there also appears to be a renumbering of the photographic stock numbers when compared to the same images on the undivided back cards. In many cases a blank space with caption is retained on the obverse, just as we saw with the undivided back specimens. In a handful of cases, the photograph is bled to all edges of the card and the caption is printed directly atop the image. Type 3: The black ink design signals an overhaul of the entire card design by Ahuja. The stock number is brought to the front of the publisher line. Ahuja’s use of the word “copyright” is very inconsistent. I have noticed, however, that he uses the term when his is copying a photograph of Klier, a rather unintuitive practice given a lawsuit was brought against him by Klier in 1907. The upper limit of stock numbers for the black-back design I have seen thus far is 155. The earliest cancellation date I have seen for this design is November 1907. We now encounter Ahuja’s distinctive captioning style, a white label placed at the bottom of the image. There are slight variations in font, but I have not been able to trance out any rationale for the changes. Type 4: A green ink is now used for the reverse design. “Printed in Germany” is marked in the stamp box. All notices of “copyright” are removed, even if the photograph was originally taken by Klier (I presume Ahuja obtained the rights after the lawsuit). The upper limit of stock numbers for the green-back design I have seen thus far is 614. The earliest date I have seen for this design is August 1912.Type 5: This card design remains curious to me. It retains the older method of placing the stock number at the end of the publisher line, but still has the stamp box marking printing in Germany. The obverse design also has a white border around the photograph with the stock number as part of the caption.
Philip Klier
Reverse of Klier studio carte-de-viste mounting card.
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 location 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. 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 tinted cards.
The analysis below is preliminary – there appear to be a wide variety of variants in both the obverse and reverse design.
Undivided Back
Type 1: The reverse for the Birma Series Asien cards issued by Verlag v. Albert Aust. In addition to the caption providing the location of the photograph, a series stock number was included.Type 2: The reverse deign for the early monochromatic collage cards (see above). Except for the inclusion of the stamp box, this design is similar to the back of the undivided Ahuja cards. The collage cards backs are typically in red ink. The obverse of the collage cards, in addition to the caption, would incorporate Klier’s name and address, and the word “copyright” – presumably in accordance with new trademark laws enacted in 1894 (see Berchiolly 2018: 98n.16). Type 3: The reverse design for an unknown publisher that used Klier’s photographs, only identified by Klier’s inscription on the original photograph, not imprinted on the card. Not all cards with this reverse design have a photograph with Klier’s inscription in view, thus more research needs to be done on these issues. Type 4: Similar to the reverse design above, the obverse bears a single image bled to three edges (the bottom or right side is left blank for correspondence). The image could be monochromatic or polychromatic. Some monochromatic images are printed in dark blue ink for both the obverse caption and reverse design. Colored images typically have black ink reverse designs, like above. I presume these to be later than the collage cards with red ink reverse designs. The obverse bears Klier’s name and a stock number.
Divided Back
Type 5: A reverse design for monochromatic images bled to all four edges.Type 6: A reverse design for monochromatic images bled to all four edges. I am unsure of the number in the bottom right.Type 7: A reverse design for colored images. I am unsure of the number in the bottom right.
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.
This map locates many of the Chinese temples built in San Francisco before the 1906 earthquake and fire. Known generically as miao 廟 (or miu in Cantonese), meaning temple or shrine hall, most of the non-Chinese American public referred to these structures as “joss houses” in the nineteenth century. A principle function of these temples, from which their American name derived, was to house Chinese religious icons, commonly called “joss.” Rarely, however, did urban temples occupy a whole building; temples were more typically shrine halls located on the top floor of a multi-story structure. Moreover, these temples were not operated by religious institutions, but were owned and operated by various community organizations. A handful seem to have been privately owned. Often the largest temples were operated by different district associations (huiguan 會館), while many other temples were run by secret fraternal organizations (tang 堂) or various associations organized around clan lineages or trades. Many temples, especially privately owned ones, enshrined numerous icons that could be worshiped for an array of reasons, but sometimes a temple was dedicated to a single figure who functioned like the patron deity of the association or guild. This icon was placed in the central altar of the main shrine hall. In the case of larger district association buildings, the lower floors were typically used for non-religious functions, such as meeting rooms, short-term lodging, or other work spaces necessary for the operation of the organization.
The base map used here is the 1887 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. This is followed by brief commentary and related imagery showing the exterior and interior of selected temples.
*May 2025 Update: Significant revisions to map and commentary. I’ve archived the older post here.
Map of Temples in San Francisco’s Chinatown: 1850s-1906
Click to open enlarged map in new tab
Notes: I’ve arranged temples and shrines according to type, following the classifications of Chuimei Ho and Bennet Bronson (2022). The two locations in the key numbered with an “X” fall outside the range of this map: the Sze Yup / Kong Chow building was at 512 Pine Street (Pine runs parallel to California Street) and Ah Ching’s Tin How Temple was on one of the corners where Post Street crosses Mason Street. Please note, this map is syncretic, not all of the temples and shrines existed at the same time and many moved to different locations around Chinatown (noted by I, II, etc.), sometimes taking up residence in older temple buildings.
Comparison of 1887 Sanborn Map and 1885 Board of Supervisors’ Map
Some of oldest temples in Chinatown are thought to be the Tin How Temple [#14] and the Kong Chow temple [#X1], both often claimed to have been built in the early 1850s, but this is not without some dispute. The earliest media report of a Chinese temple in San Francisco – characterized variously as a heathen, pagan, and idol temple in newspaper accounts – appears in fall 1851, but the temple’s identity and affiliation remains unknown. The earliest identifiable temple is the Yeong Wo Association building, built on the southwestern slope of Telegraph Hill in fall 1852. Both of these predate the Sze Yup Association temple, sometimes mistakenly considered the first Buddhist temple in the United States, which was constructed on a corner lot on Pine Street and Kearny Street in 1853 [see #X1 below]. By the 1880s, Waverly Place, the two-block road between Sacramento Street and Washington Street, was known among the Chinese as Tin How Temple Street (Tianhou miao jie 天后廟街) and became the home to the greatest density of Chinese temples before the 1906 earthquake.
While the Tin How and Kong Chow temples are today considered among the most famous in Chinatown, both being rebuilt after the earthquake and fire, an examination of historical media coverage, travel accounts, and visual portrayals of San Francisco’s Chinese religious heritage reveals a for more complex historical picture. As Chinatown grew and developed through the nineteenth century, different temples garnered attention at different times, some eventually falling into obscurity after a period of relative fame. One of the first temples to attract media attention was the opening of the Sze Yup Association temple in 1853 [#X1], only later to become the legal property of the Kong Chow Association in the mid-1860s. The next to receive substantial attention was the Ning Yung Temple in 1864 [#34], in part due to the description of the temple’s opening by an early-career Samuel Clemens, later known as Mark Twain. Through the 1860s this was considered the primary “joss house” for tourists to visit, located in relative proximity to the new Globe Hotel on Dupont and Jackson. In the following decade significant media and tourist guidebook attention was directed towards the privately owned Eastern Glory Temple [#24] in 1871 on St. Louis Alley and then towards the new and ornately decorated Hop Wo Temple on Clay Street after 1874 [#10]. When the Yeong Wo moved from their old building on Brooklyn Place [#2] to their new site on Stockton [#6] in 1887, they also began attracting more outside visitors and curious onlookers, in part due to the festive parades held in honor of their main icon. Lastly, when the Ning Yung moved to their new temple on Waverly [#8] in 1891 in the heart of Chinatown, they were considered the most opulent and worthy of tourist visitation. After rebuilding and reopening in 1911, the Tin How temple was seen as a reminder of old Chinatown, especially as many of the previous temples and shrines halls were never rebuilt.
Limiting ourselves to the temples listed here where a main icon can be identified, the semi-historical figure Guandi 關帝 was the most common [#8/#34, #10, #27, #X1, and all secret societies). Two, or possibly three, temples focused devotion to the Empress of Heaven (i.e. Tianhou 天后), also known as the goddess Mazu 媽祖 [#14, #30, #X2], and two temples were dedicated to the popular Buddhist figure Guanyin Bodhisattva [#12, #19]. Guanyin and Tianhou also appeared in a few temples flanking the main icon or were placed in adjacent altars, rooms, or floors [#2, #24, #X2]. Another important figure was the Supreme Emperor of the Dark Heavens (Xuantian shangdi 玄天上帝), also known as the Northern Emperor (Beidi 北帝), whose icon traveled with the movement of the Eastern Glory Temple [#24, #16]. Among the numerous fraternal societies that operated temples, the Chee Kong Society [#18] was by considerable margin the most influential.
It is worth noting I have not encountered a valid report or illustration of a Śākyamuni or Amitābha Buddha statue in any pre-1906 Chinese temple in San Francisco. Despite many tourist accounts of seeing “the Buddha” at a Chinatown temple, such accounts can be easily explained as ignorance; most often the object of mis-identification was an icon of Guandi or the Northern Emperor. Some accounts even seem to use the term “buddha” as analogous to “joss” with no more precise meaning than “Chinese idol.” In contrast to the limited nature and function of community organization temples and shrine halls, many of which prominently displayed Guandi, privately owned temples had more freedom to enshrine a wider range of icons, including Buddhist ones. In this regard, the figure of Guanyin seems to have played a central role in the religious life of many early Chinese immigrants, being found in five locations on this map and likely remaining unreported at many others. At least one observer in 1883 claimed Guanyin occupied a “prominent corner of every private home as well as temple.” Images of the Buddha found no such popular support among early Chinese immigrants in San Francisco.
A brief note on dating: When examining secondary research on the history of Chinatown’s temples one will often run into different dates for a particular temple’s founding. On one hand, this is due to a conflation between the formal organization of a district association and the construction of a district association building, two distinct events that may be separated by many years. For example, while the Ning Yung Association organized in 1853, the earliest mention of an association building with shrine hall is 1864, an eleven-year gap. I am interested in the building of Chinese temples, often reported with fanfare in news media, which allows us to focus attention on the reception and influence of Chinese material culture in the United States. On another hand, not only did the 1906 earthquake and fire destroy Chinatown’s religious buildings, but also almost all district association and fraternal society records. Some of the associations or temples claiming to date to the 1850s, for example, are often relying on oral histories. This is valuable data that must be viewed in conjunction with other available historical records. As of this writing, the most detailed information regarding the history of Chinese temples in San Francisco is Chuimei Ho and Bennet Bronson’s Chinese Traditional Religion and Temples in North America, 1849–1920: California (2022). Some of my observations below supplement their analysis.
Selected Temples (With Brief Commentary and Selected Imagery)
1. Lung Kong Association (Longgang gongsuo 龍岡公所) 9 Brooklyn Place / 1887 Sanborn
The two-story Lung Kong building opened in the mid-1880s. San Francisco-based photographer Isaiah West Taber (1830–1912) was able to capture a rare image of the main altar and shrine hall in 1887 (see below). The central icons were five glorified cultural heroes, Liu Bei 劉備 (center), Guan Yu 關羽 (center right), Zhang Fei 張飛 (center left), Zhao Yun 趙雲 (far right), and Zhuge Liang 諸葛亮 (far left).[For more on Taber’s photograph and it’s continued biography as a postcard, see here]. Taber’s photograph was repurposed for the cover toWilliam Bode’s Lights and shadows of Chinatown in 1896. A simplistic sketch from Edward Wilson Currier (1857–1918) possibly showing the temple’s two-story brick building exterior from 1898 was published in a San Francisco tour guide. It appears Arnold Genthe (1869–1942) may have also taken a photograph looking the opposite way down Brooklyn, just capturing the temple’s lanterns (see both below). All temple records and artifacts were lost in the 1906 earthquake. The Long Kong Association rebuilt after 1906 at a different location and is still in operation today under the name Lung Kong Tin Yee Association.
I.W. Taber, “B 2699 Chinatown, S. F. Cal. The Five Idols in the Holy of Holies in the Joss Temple of Lung Gong,” 1887. [source]
[Interior of a Chinese Joss House, San Francisco] From Frank Leslie’s Sunday Magazine, April 1888, photograph by Iasiah Taber.
I.W. Taber, “B 2698 Chinatown, S. F. Cal. The incense table in the Joss Temple of Lung Gong,” 1887. [source]
William Bode, Lights and shadows of Chinatown, 1896 [source]
Arnold Genthe, “Old Longgang Temple lanterns, Chinatown, 4 Brooklyn Place, San Francisco,” 1896–1906 [source]
2. Yeong Wo Association I (Yanghe huiguan 陽和會館) / Temple of Golden Flower (Jinhua 金花) 4 Brooklyn Place / 1905 Sanborn
This small two-story building on Brooklyn Place was occupied by the Yeong Wo Association headquarters since at least 1884 before moving to its more permanent location down Sacramento Street [#6]. In the late 1880s a private temple took over the building that according to Frederic Masters was, “crowded with images of goddesses, mothers, nurses, and children.” The central icon was Lady Golden Flower (Jinhua niangniang 金花娘娘), a figure known to protect the health of women and children. This figure was flanked by Guanyin and Tianhou. Additionally, along the walls of the temple were arranged eighteen attendant wet nurses (nainiang 奶娘) of Lady Golden Flower. One report in 1883, likely before Golden Flower Temple opened, notes that icons of Golden Flower, holding a child in each of her arms, were placed under the bed of Chinatown’s infants. Altars to Golden Flower were also established in private temples, such as we see in An Ching’s Tin How Temple [#X2] and Eastern Glory Temple on St. Louis [#24]. The 1885 Board of Supervisors’ Map locates a joss house at this location, almost certainly indicating the Yeong Wo temple. The 1887 Sanborn Map identifies no temple at this address, suggesting the map was prepared after the Yeong Wo association moved, but before Golden Flower Temple opened its doors. The Golden Flower Temple was not rebuilt after the 1906 earthquake.
[Interior of the Temple of Golden Flower] From Masters’ “Our Pagan Temples” (1892).
3. Lord Tam Temple (Tamgong miao 譚公廟) Oneida Place / 1887 Sanborn
This was a three-story clan association temple for the Tam (Tom) families and was in existence by the late 1880s, but reputed by Frederic Masters to be among the oldest in Chinatown. Located on Oneida Place, the central icon is recorded as Lord Tam (Tamgong 譚公), often considered a patron saint of seafarers – and at least in Chinatown, for theater troupes as well – and closely associated with the minority Hakka ethnic group. Charles Albert Rodgers painted the temple’s entrance in 1901 [viewable here].
4. Washermen’s Guild Shrine 825 Washington / 1887 Sanborn
There were several washermen’s guilds in Chinatown, but one was known to meet regularly on Oneida Place. One newspaper account from 1870 notes the guild’s joss house was in the rear of a two-story building at 825 Sacramento, accessible by a narrow set of stairs off Oneida Place. Missionary Augustus W. Loomis, who took over the Presbyterian Church in Chinatown in 1859, claimed the washermen’s guild set up altars to Guandi, seeking to secure prosperity for their businesses. According to Chuimei Ho and Bennett Bronson suggest the guild shrine may have moved to 810 Clay by 1887 [#11].
5. Chinese Merchant’s ExchangeShrine 739 Stockton
Located at 739 Stockton in 1882, the Chinese Merchant’s Exchange was independent from the district associations, but still held considerable power. Local reports note the Exchange building possessed a joss, before which business transactions were sealed. The small shrine depicting a spirit tablet was included as an insert for an illustration published by Harper’s Weekly in 1882 (see below).
Paul Frenzeny, “Chinese Merchant’s Exchange, San Francisco,” Harper’s Weekly, 18 March 1882. [source][alternate]
6. Yeong Wo Association II (Yanghe huiguan 陽和會館) 730 Sacramento Street / 1887 Sanborn
The Yeong Wo Association originally had a temple on the southwestern slope of Telegraph Hill by 1852 (exact address remains unknown). An uncharacteristically detailed newspaper report of the time recounts the opening of the shrine hall which included the performance of Chinese opera as part of the festivities and confused by the observer as part of the ritual performance conducted Chinese priests. By the late 1860s the Yeong Wo organization was known to be developing property on Sacramento Street, but seems to have transitioned to a temporary location on Brooklyn Place [#2]. For a time in 1885 the Yeong Wo seems to have also occupied 730 Jackson [#30]. The final move down to Sacramento Street in 1887 – nearly twenty years after the move was initially reported – involved a festive parade for the central icon Houwang 侯王, a semi-historical figure who had become the “patron saint” of the association. Houwang’s annual birthday celebration also involved a raucous parade of the icon through the streets of Chinatown, causing much media attraction up through 1906. Amédéé Joulin (1862–1917), a French-American painter born in San Francisco, reputedly painted the interior of the Yeong Wo temple in 1890. Two newspaper illustrations show the temple decorated for festivals (see below). After the 1906 earthquake the Yeong Wo shrine hall was not replaced.
Amédéé Joulin, “An Interior of a Joss House – At Prayer,” 1890. [also here]
From “How Wong’s Birthday,” San Francisco Call, 24 September 1895.
From “Cymbals Crash…,” San Francisco Call, 22 September 1903.
8. Ning Yung Association II (Ningyang huiguan 寧陽會館) 35 Waverly Place / 1905 Sanborn
The Ning Yung Association moved from its original location [#34] to Waverly in 1891. Two rather crude newspaper sketches offer a glimpse at the official procession and parade as well as the new altar for the main Ning Yung Association icon, Guandi. Frederic Masters called this building the finest temple in Chinatown in 1892 and visitors reported marveling at its marble stairs and gas lighting. Construction reportedly cast $160,000 with opening festivities lasting ten days and costing an estimated $15,000. Isaiah West Taber took a photo of the three-story building around 1891 (see below). After the 1906 earthquake, the association building was rebuilt, but the shrine hall was not replaced.
[Carrying the Joss to New Quarters] From “Housing a Joss,” San Francisco Chronicle, 1891 September 26.
[In the New Joss House] From “A New Josshouse,” San Francisco Chronicle, 1891 September 25.
I.W. Taber, “3546 The New Chinese Joss House, Waverly Place, San Francisco,” c.1891. [source]
William Bode, Lights and shadows of Chinatown, 1896 [source][also here]
“Chinese Burn Punk for Quon Kong, the Allwise,” San Francisco Chronicle, 1897 October 7.
[Street View of Ning Yung Building] Keystone View Company, “11659 – Reading War News-In Chinatown, San Francisco, Cal. U.S.A.” c.1901. [source]
10. Hop Wo Association (Hehe huiguan 合和會館) 751 Clay Street / 1887 Sanborn
The Hop Wo Association formed in 1862 and opened its first headquarters with temple in 1874, occupying a three-story brick building directly across from the southwest corner of Portsmouth Square. The shrine hall, dedicated to Guandi, was on the top floor and outfitted with a reported $30,000 worth of icons, furnishings, and ritual equipment shipped from China. Soon after opening, a touring New York clergyman marveled at the temple’s opulence, claiming he was “entranced in a blaze of glory!” Through the early 1880s tourist guide books continued to recommend seeing the Hop Wo shrine hall, but by 1892 the building had lost its former luster, with Frederic Masters proclaiming it a “dingy-looking place.” Isaiah West Taber took two rare photographs of the shrine hall in the mid-1880s (see one below). These were sold by Taber’s studio by 1889. The shrine hall was not replaced after the 1906 earthquake.
I. W. Taber, “4769 God in Joss Temple, Chinatown, S.F., Cal.” mid-1880s. [source]
From Frederic Master’s “Our Pagan Temples” (1892).
11. Hong Sing Society [?] / Dock Tin Society 810 Clay / 1887 Sanborn
The 1887 Sanborn map notes this location at 810 Clay as “Chinese Laundry 2d Joss Ho 3d,” meaning it identified a joss house on the top floor. (The 1885 Supervisors’ Map identified the building as a restaurant.) Several contemporary photographs looking east down Clay towards Dupont (see proper map orientation here) suggest a shrine hall occupied the top floor (see below, also here, here, here & here). Hanging lanterns were a fixture on both restaurant and temple balconies, but one would expect to see inscribed boards above and on both sides of the main door of a temple. Existing photographs do not clearly show such details. Newspaper reports, however, provide some clues. In 1892, a fire damaged the roof of the St. Francis hotel, located on the corner of Dupont and Clay, which consequently damaged a joss house belonging to the Hong Sing Society, reputed “on Waverly” (see below). Perhaps it referred to 810 Clay? Moreover, in January 1895, continuing police raids in Chinatown claim to have captured a “war joss” (i.e. Guandi) from Dock Tin Society at 810 Clay [source]. If we turn to the 1905 Sanborn map we find the third floor was still being used for society rooms [here]. Regardless of these activities, 810 Clay was perhaps most known for its successful restaurant that operated on the first and second floors into the early twentieth century. It appears the restaurant or building owner rented space to various Chinese societies from time to time. Overall, the eye-catching balconies of 810 Clay would become a favorite of Chinatown photographers and postcard manufacturers (see detailed write-up by Doug Chan here)[additional photos of Clay & Waverly here].
[Damaged temple on Waverly] From “Pagan Gods Scorched,” San Francisco Call, 27 October 1892.
12. Wong Kong Ha Shrine (Huang jiangxia 黃江夏) 3 Brenham Place / 1887 Sanborn
Both the 1885 Surveyors’ Map and the 1887 Sanborn Map mark 3 Brenham Place as a joss house, coincidentally right next door to the Chinese Mission. The multi-story wood building was possibly owned by the wealthy Wong Kong Ha clan. One photo reputedly dated to 1880 appears to show 3 Brenham Place with a shrine hall on the top floor (see below). The 1887 Sanborn map shows a three story brick building with joss house, a precursor to the four-story building built by the Wong clan in 1890. The top held a shrine to Water Moon Guanyin. In 1894 they moved the shrine hall next door, as can be seen in the 1905 Sanborn map [here].
Anonymous, “Brenham Place, west Side of Portsmouth Plaza. Monumental Engine Co. ca. 1880” c.1880. [source]
14. Tin How Temple (Tianhou miao 天后廟) & Sam Yup Association II (Sanyi huiguan 三邑會館)[?] & Hip Yee Society (Xieyi tang 協義堂) 33 / 121 Waverly Place / 1887 Sanborn
In 1892, Frederic Masters claimed the Tin How Temple was connected to the Sam Yup Association, but Chuimei Ho and Bennet Bronson have suggested it was an independent temple which may have been occasionally used by the Sam Yup Association. In support of this claim, an 1880 city tax assessment locates the principle Sam Yup joss house at 825 Dupont [#17], proving the district association did not consider the Tin How Temple as its dedicated shrine hall in the early 1880s. Furthermore, in 1868, the Sam Yup Association is recorded as owning buildings on Clay and Sacramento streets, while also renting offices on Commercial Street, but no mention is made of property on Waverly at this time.
The recurring claim that the Tin How Temple was founded in the early 1850s, when the Sam Yup organization was first founded, seems now to be without sound evidence. An 1877 city directory locates the Hip Yee Society temple at 33 Waverly, the same address as Tin How Temple. In the previous year, the city directory located the Hip Yee Society temple at 730 Jackson, an address noted for its temple dedicated to Tianhou [#30]. While more evidence is warranted, It appears the Hip Yee Society was consequential in founding the Tin How Temple in the late 1870s, the same period in which Ho and Bronson find the first explicit mention of a Tin How Temple in extant records. This dating is bolstered by a June 1877 Chronicle article, entitled “A New Joss House,” that speaks of a new temple on Waverly dedicated to the “Daughter of Heaven,” an inexact rendering of the name Tin How. There is currently no clear evidence a Tin How Temple was located on Waverly before 1877. Moreover, up through 1874, the popular birthday celebrations for the goddess Tianhou were held at the Tin How Temple on Mason Street [#X2]. Before burning down in 1874, this temple on Mason appears to have been the most important Chinatown site related to the goddess.
Turning again to the building on Waverly (renumbered 121 from the original 33 before the earthquake) the central icon was always cited as Tin How (Tianhou 天后, the Empress of Heaven; also known as Mazu 媽祖). Isaiah West Taber took several photos of the original two-story building (with additional basement level), including one in approximately the mid-1880s, as did Treu Ergeben Hecht (see below). This building’s facade was commonly used for early twentieth century Chinatown postcards (see here), helping to establish it as a visual icon of pre-1906 Chinatown. No objects belonging to the original shrine hall appear to have survived the 1906 earthquake and fire; I also know of no surviving illustrations or photos of the original altar (although one candidate shows an incense burner inscribed with Temple of Many Saints [liesheng gong 列聖宮] as seen on the signboard above the Tin How Temple doorway, see here [also here]; see false historical identification here). Given the secondary name of the Tin How Temple as the Temple of Many Saints, we may surmise multiple icons were enshrined here, likely including Guanyin, but documentation is sparse as to the content of the shrine halls previous to 1906. The temple was rebuilt on roughly the same footprint of the old building, renumbered now as 125 Waverly.
I.W. Taber, “B 529 Chinese Josh-House, S.F. Cal.” mid-1880s. [source][Note the two-story wood-frame building next door; according to the 1885 Supervisor’s map, this was under construction as a new brick building which we see in later photographs, e.g see #16 below]
Arnold Genthe, “In Front of the Joss House,” 1896–1906. [source][also here & here]
Arnold Genthe, “In Front of the Joss House” from Old Chinatown (1912).
16. Eastern Glory Temple II (Donghua miao 東華廟) & Gee Tuck Society (Zhide tang 至德堂)& Yee Fung Toy Society (Yufengcai tang 余風采堂) 35 Waverly Place / 1887 Sanborn
Adjacent to Tin How Temple, 35 Waverly was rebuilt as a three-story brick structure around 1885. Perhaps just prior, Li Po Tai appears to have moved his temple from St. Louis Alley [#24] to this address. A report in 1882 describing a shrine hall identified the central icon as the Supreme Emperor of the Dark Heavens (Xuantian shangdi) as well as other icons present at Li Po Tai’s older location. After the new building on Waverly was finished, the second floor was occupied by the Gee Tuck Society shine, but was destroyed by sabotage in 1888. Frederic Masters still names the Eastern Glory Temple at 35 Waverly in 1892 as does a Chinese language business directory from the same year. At some point the third floor was used by the Yee Fung Toy Society, who were deeded the building in 1896. Isaiah West Taber photographed 33 and 35 Waverly in the late 1880s (see below), offering the cityscape portrait for sale by 1889.
I. W. Taber, “B2694 Chinatown, S. F. Cal. The Joss Temple” c.1890. [source]
17. Sam Yup Association I (Sanyi huiguan 三邑會館) 825 Dupont / 1887 Sanborn
The Sam Yup Association is among the oldest district associations in San Francisco, founded in 1851 as the Canton Company, then operating as Sam Yup starting in 1853. Its close association with the Tin How Temple on Waverly at the turn of the twentieth century may explain why the latter is often cited as being founded in 1851, 1852, or 1853. As noted above [#14], however, the association between these two entities is complex, but it is clear the Sam Yup Association did not found the Tin How Temple in the 1850s. In fact, there is no clear evidence of them operating a temple or shrine hall in San Francisco until the 1880s. In 1868, Sam Yup had a “company house” on Clay Street above Powell in a “dilapidated condition,” but we are not informed if this building had a dedicated shrine hall. We may presume, at the least, it housed a small altar, but was not open to the public like other large district association temples.
By 1876 the Sam Yup Association is linked to an unknown address on Dupont Street and in 1880 a San Francisco city tax assessment lists a Sam Yup Company with joss house at 825 Dupont. The Dupont address is corroborated in the city directory the following year, but unexpectedly adds a “Sum Yup” Company joss house at 730 Jackson Street, possibly in reference to poorly understood Jackson Street temple devoted to Tainhou [#30]. Moreover, in 1883, a Sam Yup temple is noted as being on Waverly, but this is listed separately from a Tin How Temple also on Waverly, suggesting they were distinct entities at the time. The 1887 Sanborn map lists “Club Rooms & Joss Ho.” at 825 Dupont, showing Sam Yup members keep a shrine at that address in the late 1880s. Fundraising efforts in 1899 finally allowed the Sam Yup Association to open their own dedicated public temple the following year at 929 Dupont Street [#25], as can be seen in the 1905 Sanborn map [here].
18. Chee Kong Society (Zhigong tang 致公堂) 69 / 32 Spofford Street / 1887 Sanborn
Often cited as the most wealthy and influential of all Chinese secret societies, the Chee Kong Society occupied a three-story building on Spofford since 1881, moving from 827 Washington Street. In 1886 Harper’s Weekly covered the Chee Kong’s elaborate initiation rituals which took place before a religious altar. The shrine hall is not described in the text and the accompanying sketch may be fictional (see below). After a series of police raids around Chinatown in 1891, newspaper reports claim Chee Kong’s icon, Guandi, was damaged and sought legal restitution from the city. After 1906, the Chee Kong Society rebuilt on the footprint of their old building, complete with new shrine hall.
From Harper’s Weekly, “Chinese Highbinders,” 13 February 1886. [source]
Opened by the early 1880s, the Guanyin Temple was located on the top floor of a three-story brick building on the southwest corner of Spofford Street and Washington Street. The temple is curiously missing form both the 1885 Supervisors’ map and the 1887 Sanborn map. Nevertheless, in 1883, a Guanyin shrine is cited as located on the “contracted upper floor of a small building on Washington.” Frederic Masters, writing in 1892, notes the shrine hall was atop a “dingy staircase” that held a “rudely carved image and grimy vestments.” According to Masters, the space held an assortment of other figures, including the God of Medicine (Huatuo 華佗), the Grand Duke of Peace (Suijing Bo 绥靖伯), and Tsai Tin Tai Shing (Qitian dasheng 齊天大聖, otherwise known as the Monkey King, Sun Wukong 孙悟空).
In a rare find, a brochure seeking funds to restore the temple has survived, dated to 1886 (guangxu 12). It claims, perhaps uncritically, that the temple had existed for more than thirty years at that point. It also notes the space was managed by Li Xiyi 李希意. Isaiah West Taber took a photo looking down Spofford; the temple’s round lanterns can barely be seen at the far end (see below). Additionally, Arnold Genthe took at least one photo showing the exterior signage of this temple between 1896 and 1906 (see below). The temple was not rebuilt after 1906.
Arnold Genthe, “Doorways in Dim Shadows, Chinatown, San Francisco, 1896–1906. [source]
24. Eastern Glory Temple I (Donghua miao 東華廟) St. Louis Alley (previously thought to be rear of 933 Dupont Street) / 1887 Sanborn
Opening in 1871, it appears famed Chinatown physician Li Po Tai (Li Putai 黎普泰) may have started this private temple after barely surviving a gas explosion in 1870. The multi-room temple was on the third floor of a large building on St. Louis Alley, allowing entrance from both Dupont and Jackson streets. (A city directory from 1877 lists the address as 921 1/2 Dupont, which refers to a narrow alley running off Dupont, sometimes also called Nun Kuk Alley). A map of Chinatown compiled by Henry Josiah West in 1873 places a joss house at the 90-degree bend in St. Louis Alley [here]. Until recently, I considered this in error. Yet, this placement is corroborated by an oil painting of St. Louis Alley by Karl Wilhelm Hahn (1829–1887), which depicts a temple doorway on the third story of a building (see below). Rather uncharacteristically, the horizontal Chinese signboard is clearly legible, saying “Eastern Glory Temple.” Even the vertical pillar boards (yinglian 楹聯) appear to match mostly match with known textual records (and a partly obscured photograph). According to the numbering on the 1887 Sanborn map, this doorway is approximately equivalent to 4 or 5 St. Louis Alley, but a report from 1873 clarifies the temple occupied the entirety of the third flood of the building, spanning six rooms and thus multiple ground-floor addresses. The first room, furthest east, was fitted with a small door and led to a reception area while the second room sold ritual supplies. The final four rooms enshrined icons. A larger second doorway, seen in Hahn’s painting, led directly to the main altar.
A series of stereo-photographs taken by Eadweard Muybridge offer clear depictions of the temple interior, including the main altar (see below). The Supreme Ruler of the Somber Heavens (Xuantian shangdi 玄天上帝; also Northern Emperor [Beidi 北帝]) sits in the center. Some contemporary reports seems to conflate this central icon with Buddhist figures. It also appear Li may have moved icons around as one visitor claims in 1876, and another in 1880, that Guandi was the central icon, but this may just be a mis-identification (also see next entry for Yan Wo). The main hall originally enshrined a total of five icons, while other deities were found in adjoining rooms, including a Guanyin figure. One visitor writing in 1890, but describing experiences more than a decade earlier, noted a Chinese liturgy to Guanyin imprinted with her image available for sale. This was likely similar to the printed liturgy seen at Ah Ching’s Tin How Temple [#X2].
By 1880, at least three major Chinatown celebrations centered upon Eastern Glory Temple, including the birthdays of the Northern Emperor (3rd day of 3rd lunar month) and the God of Wealth (16th day of 7th lunar month), as well as the summertime Ghost Festival, suggesting this privately-run temple was a major center of local religious life. Consequently, through the 1870s, Eastern Glory Temple was known as the “boss temple” of Chinatown. At least two engravings were published showing the interior of the main shrine hall with three total altars (see below). Sometime around 1882, Li Po Tai seems to have moved the contents of his Eastern Glory Temple to 35 Waverly [#16], next door to Tin How Temple [#14]. Frederick Masters still notes an Eastern Glory at 35 Waverly in 1892, but does not afford it a description, suggesting it had fallen from previous heights as a major Chinatown attraction.
Karl Wilhelm Hahn, [“Chinatown Alley, Sing Yuen Washing & Ironing”], oil painting, 1885. [source]
Eadweard Muybridge, “Chinese Joss House, Guardian of the Temple,” stereoview, c. 1871.
Eadweard Muybridge, “Chinese Joss House. God of the Earth,” stereoview, c. 1871.
Eadweard Muybridge, “Chinese Joss House, Guardian of the Temple,” stereoview, c. 1871.
Eadweard Muybridge, “Chinese Joss House. Tauist [Daoist] Priest in Full Costume,” stereoview, c. 1871.
Likely illustration of Eastern Glory Temple, Harper’s Weekly, 25 March 1871. [also here]
Likely illustration of Eastern Glory Temple, from Shearer, The Pacific Tourist (1876). [Note the Chinese banners are more legible than the 1871 Harper’s engraving, suggesting this was not a copy, but an independent illustration.]
27. Yan Wo Association (Renhe huiguan 和會館) 5 St. Louis Alley & 933 Dupont Street / 1887 Sanborn
In 1877 it was reported that Yan Wo was the only district association of the major six that did not yet have a temple. Three years later, in 1880, a San Francisco city tax assessment reported the Yan Wo Association had an operating joss house located at 5 St. Louis Alley. In 1883 a Yan Wo temple is noted on St. Louis Alley, corroborating the above claims, but I have found no descriptions of the shrine hall. By 1892, the address of the Yan Wo Association had moved around the block to 933 Dupont Street, where its shrine was outfitted with an icon of Guandi and “fitted up in elegant style.” An oil painting by Karl Wilhelm Hahn of St. Louis Alley, estimated to have been completed in 1885, shows Eastern Glory Temple at 4 or 5 St. Louis Alley [#24]. It remains unknown if Yan Wo shared or occupied the space at Eastern Glory Temple, or if they occupied a different floor of the same building. If the 1876 and 1880 reports citing Guandi as the main icon in Eastern Glory Temple are correct (see previous entry), this may indicate a change of stewardship to Yan Wo, but this remains uncorroborated. The 1887 Sanborn map likely shows the Yan Wo temple at its new location in the rear of the 933 Dupont building.
28. St. George Temple 731 Jackson Street
The 1875 Bishop San Francisco City Directory contains a curious entry: St. George Joss House, 731 Jackson [source]. It is listed again in the 1876 edition [source], but is gone by the following year. Nothing is known about this temple. It is not clear why the Christian martyr, St. George, famed for his defeat of a villainous dragon, is adopted as the name of a Chinese temple, but Frederick Masters provides a clue. In his survey of Chinatown temples in 1892, Masters describes Guandi as the “Saint George of Far Cathy,” drawing attention to the militaristic aspects of both figures. The St. George Joss House may have been one of many Chinese temples devoted to the semi-historical figure Guandi.
29. Bing Kong Society II (binggong tang 秉公堂) 740 Jackson / 1887 Sanborn
After a series of violent altercations with the Chee Kong Society, the group from which the Bing Kong Society originally split, city police decided to raid all Chinese secret society headquarters just before Chinese New year in 1891. The Bing Kong were ransacked first while still on Washington [#21], as “joss and idols fell with a crash” [source]. In autumn the following year, the society fashioned an old store at 740 Jackson into a shrine hall to celebrate their ancestors; the local news covered the event and incorporated a small illustration (see below). Important festivals of this period, categorically glossed as dajiao 打醮 by Chuimei Ho and Bennet Bronson, had giant wood-framed paper statues of deities placed at the temple entrance. These were burned at the end of celebrations. (For comparison, I’ve also included a painting by Theodore Wores showing similar figures at an unidentified Chinatown temple, the original painting was likely destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire; further figures are seen here & here). Since many non-Chinese visitors came during big festivals, some reports mistakenly believe these giant images are permanent features of the temple. Eventually, the Bing Kong Society would establish a shrine hall at 34 Waverly Place by the late 1890s [#13].
From “Treating the Ghosts,” Los Angeles Herald, 23 October 1892. [source] [NB: Although the caption labels this illustration as the “shrine,” this is the front entrance off the street.]
From H.B. McDowell, “New Light on the Chinese,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, December 1892.
30. Jackson Street Temple 730 Jackson Street [?] / 1887 Sanborn
One temple on Jackson Street, often noted as located between Dupont Street and Stockton Street remains obscure. In 1876 this location is described as displaying a central icon of Tianhou (Mazu), a claim that is repeated in 1880 and 1882 (although this latter author visited Chinatown in the summer of 1878). In 1883, a temple on “Jackson Street near Stockton” is named as Eastern Glory Temple, but this could be a mistake for the location of Li Po Tai’s old location on St. Louis Alley [#24], sometimes also cited as being off Jackson. To add further confusion, Li possibly owned the building at 730 Jackson [source] and probably moved his temple to 35 Waverly by 1882 [#16], but construction at this Waverly address may have caused his temporary relocation in the mid-1880s. The 1881 city directory lists a “Sum Yup” joss house at 730 Jackson Street, which likely refers to the Sam Yup Association later connected with the Tin How Temple on Waverly [#14]. Previously, the Hip Yee Society was also reported as having a temple at 730 Jackson in 1877. Notably, the following year, the Hip Yee Society listed their temple at 33 Waverly, the location of the famed Tin How Temple and a building they ultimately acquired in 1891 [#14].
The relationship between the Tianhou temples on Jackson and Waverly remains unknown, but the Hip Yee Society may have played a role. Notably, in a work published in 1880, Chinatown’s birthday celebrations for Tianhou (23rd day of the 3rd lunar month) are noted to take place at the Jackson Street temple, suggesting this was the most important temple to the goddess at the time (previously, in 1873, celebrations wer held at Ah Ching’s Tianhou temple on Mason [#X2]). The growth in the popularity of the Waverly temple seems to be directly related to the disappearance of the Tianhou temple on Jackson.
In 1885, it appears the Yeong Wo utilized this space temporarily before moving to their new building at 730 Sacramento [#6], possibly accounting for why the 1885 Supervisors’ map indicates a joss house on Jackson, but the 1887 Sanborn map does not. Frederick Masters does not mention a Tianhou temple, or any other shrine hall, on Jackson in his thorough survey of Chinatown temples in 1892.
34. Ning Yung Association I (Ningyang huiguan 寧陽會館) 517 Broadway Street / 1887 Sanborn
The first Ning Yung temple occupied the top floor of an impressive two-story brick building on Broadway just below Montgomery Avenue. The organization was founded in 1853 when it broke away from the Sze Yap Association, but Ning Yung members did not open their own dedicated temple until 1864. The shrine hall was consecrated to local media fanfare and was used until 1891 when the association moved to Waverly [#8]. The central icon was a life-size Guandi, described by an early-career Mark Twain as “excessively fat” with a “rotund face…painted excessively red” [source]. The original shrine hall was large with eighteen-foot ceilings and filled with ornate carvings, inscribed plaques, and ritual implements. This temple was an early tourist favorite on the northern fringes of Chinatown, despite being located in the vice-ridden area then called Barbary Coast. After the privately owned Eastern Glory Temple opened in 1871 [#24], tourist traffic tended to be redirected there by guidebooks. The move of the Ning Yung Association to Waverly in the ealry 1890s relocated its temple into the heart of Chinatown.
Anonymous, “Chinese Temple, Broadway, San Francisco”, Illustrated San Francisco News. [source]
From William Speer’s The Oldest and the Newest Empire: China and the United States (1870).
From “The Coming Man,” Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, 1870 June 25 [source]
[Showing the rear of the building] From Mrs. Frank Leslie, California: A Pleasure Trip (1877).
From L’illustration: journal universel, “Culte bouddhiste des Chinois à San-Francisco,” 15 November 1856.
Anonymous, “Interior of a Chinese Temple, Broadway, San Francisco”, Illustrated San Francisco News. [source]
From William Speer’s The Oldest and the Newest Empire: China and the United States (1870).
X1. Sze Yup Association (Siba huiguan 四邑會館) / Kong Chow Association (Gangzhou huiguan 岡州會館) 512 Pine Street / 1887 Sanborn
The Pine Street temple was first constructed by the Sze Yup Association in 1853, but the central icon of Guandi did not arrive from China until 1856. A multi-day celebration was held to consecrate the shrine hall on the second floor. It is commonly claimed the Sze Yup (alternatively, “Sze Yap”) temple was the first Buddhist temple in the United States, but this is without warrant. The sole icon enshrined was Guandi, as was common in district association temples, and no images of the Buddha or any other Buddhist figure were installed. Guandi was mainly revered as a patron of loyalty, integrity, and fraternity, all values central to district association members who lived far from their homeland. Moreover, contemporary reports note the 1856 consecration used meat and alcohol offerings, items used widely in Chinese popular religion, but not sanctioned by conventional Chinese Buddhist practice.
If any members of the Sze Yup Association sought a more appropriate religious setting with Buddhist icons (bracketing the thorny issue of Chinese religious affiliation in the modern period), they would have gone to private temples that housed a wider variety of deities, including popular figures like Guanyin. Indeed, it was possibly the lack of certain deities in district association temples that motivated the growth of private temples, such as Ah Ching’s Tin How Temple [#X2], opening as early as 1856, and Li Po Tai’s Eastern Glory Temple [#24], opening in 1871 – both of which enshrined Guanyin in special rooms. After the dissolution of the Sze Yup Association, as Chuimei Ho and Bennet Bronson have shown, all of its property was legally deeded to the Kong Chow Association, one of the splinter groups of the Sze Yup, in the mid-1860s. Despite the construction of new temples by other district associations over the years, the Kong Chow temple remained a special place of reverence for those devoted to Guandi. In both 1873 and 1880, and undoubtedly most other years as well, Guandi’s birthday celebrations (13th day of 5th lunar month) were held on Kong Chow temple grounds, a point underscored by Masters in 1892 who claimed the temple was viewed as particularly “efficacious.” The Kong Chow Association remained on Pine through 1906 and, unlike its sister organizations, was one of the few to rebuild its shrine hall after the San Francisco earthquake.
From A.W. Loomis’ “The Heathen at Our Doors” (1870).
Anonymous, [Street Entrance to Passageway to Kong Chow Temple], c. 1880s. [source]
[Rebuilt Shrine Hall] From “A Bit of New Chinatown,” Wasp, 20 December 1913. [source]
X2. Ah Ching’s Tin How Temple Corner of Post Street & Mason Street
As reported in 1868, the merchant Ah Ching opened what might have been the first private temple in San Francisco, located just west of Union Square on Mason Street near Post Street. The main icon was Tianhou, located on the first floor, but additional icons were soon added, including the standard fixtures of the Earth God (Tudi shen), God of Medicine (Huatuo), God of Wealth (Cai shen), and Guandi. This report is also the first account of Golden Flower (Jinhua), a figure that would come to have her own temple by the late 1880s [#2]. On the second floor a singular icon of Guanyin was enshrined, making this the first attested appearance of this vaunted Buddhist figure on American soil. At least by 1868, a short liturgy to Guanyin, printed on yellow paper and bearing her image holding a willow branch and vase, was distributed to devout temple visitors. It is unknown when An Ching’s temple opened, but Ho and Bronson speculate it could have been as early as 1856. In 1873 and 1874, Chinatown’s three-day birthday celebrations for Tianhou are noted as taking place at this temple, suggesting it was a central meeting place for Chinese immigrants. At least one newspaper report claims this temple was, “the resort of itinerant wash-house men and household servants,” contrasting it to the more upscale district association temples, such as the Sze Yup temple on Pine [#X1]. By 1868, Ah Ching had already died and the temple was in the hands of a former temple servant. The temple succumbed to fire in 1874 and was not rebuilt.
Other Shrines in San Francisco’s Chinatown
The 1885 Supervisors’ map indicates a total of thirteen joss houses in Chinatown, a rough number that is often repeated in contemporary San Francisco guidebooks. This is certainly a steep under-reporting if we were to include all types of religious shrines. Many smaller temples and private shrines undoubtedly went unnoticed to outsiders traversing and mapping Chinatown’s streets. For example, we know there were also guilds for carpenters, tailors, and cigar makers, among others, and all likely had their own meeting halls with altars to their guild deities, but we know nothing of their whereabouts. Notably, according to Frederic Masters, Chinatown theaters had a shrine to Lord Tam [see #3] and Huaguang 華光, always in an alcove about ten feet above the main stage. Surviving photographs show this shrine alcove in both the New Chinese Theater, at 623 Jackson [#26], run by the Sam Yup Association, and the Grand Chinese Theater at 814 Washington [#23] (Isaiah West Taber’s studio misidentifies the latter as the former, see discussion here). At times, during important celebrations, a temple’s icon might be paraded down the streets and taken to the Chinese opera. Such an event happened in the early 1880s (the recounting was published in 1883) when Guanyin’s icon on Spofford was taken to the Grand Chinese Theater at the north end of Waverly during her birthday celebrations (19th day of 2nd lunar month), and provided performances until early the next morning. This too occurred in 1884 for Yeong Wo’s Houwang icon during his birthday festivities (7th day of 8th lunar month).
[New Chinese Theater] Anonymous, “New Chinese Theater on Jackson,” c.1880s [source]
[Grand Chinese Theater] I.W. Taber, “4224 Interior of Chinese Theatre, Jackson Street, San Francisco, Cal.” 1880s [source][photo discussion here][see also here]
Outside of the overlooked clan, guild, and secret society shrines, there were also endless smaller private shrines, either displaying small statues, painted scrolls, or inscribed tablets. One observer, describing the Chinese in Santa Cruz, noted that, “nearly every store has a small space dedicated to the Joss with incense punks and food before printed papers representing a Joss” [source]. We have some specific reports about this scenario in San Francisco. For example, writing in 1880, G.B. Densmore notes spotting a joss in the rear room at Tune Fong [Yuen Fong] Restaurant at 710 Jackson Street [#31]. A scene reminiscent of this was painted by Theodore Wores, a native of San Francisco who created beautiful imagery of Chinatown in the mid-1880s. His “Chinese Musicians” portrays a restaurant (or society club room) environment with a small altar along the right side, ready with incense burner. The image on the scroll appears to be Fuxing 福星, a stellar deity associated with good fortune (also seen here with merchants posing in front). A reproduction of Wores’ painting in Harper’s Monthly Magazine in 1892 adds trails of incense smoke to enliven the shrine space. Among the many nineteenth century photographs of Chinatown restaurant interiors it is sometimes possible to spot a small altar in the back, often with offering vessels placed in front of a scroll. For example, photographer Carlton Watkins captured the interior of the famed restaurant Hang Far Low Restaurant at 713 Dupont Street in the early 1880s [#7]. If we look to the left side of the smoking divan we can clearly see the altar to Guandi with a full five-piece altar set (see below).(Other small altars might be visible here, here, & here.)
From H.B. McDowell, “New Light on the Chinese,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, December 1892.
Carlton Watkins, “Smoking Divan Chinese Restaurant,” 1880s. [source]
Elsewhere in his account, Densmore highlights the importance of Guandi, noting, “in nearly every house or store they have a picture of this god.” Historian Thomas Chinn has also written about the ubiquity of altars in stores throughout San Francisco’s Chinatown:
“In the back of nearly every shop in Chinatown there used to be an altar, before which the most venerable or senior member of the firm would offer incense every morning and before dinner. The altar was always a simple one, dedicated either to the Earth God (tudi shen) or to the God of Prosperity (cai shen), represented by a written inscription. In front of the altar would be an incense urn, candlesticks, and three cups of tea. On important occasions there would also be three thimbles of wine, flowers, fruit, and other food. Most of the altars disappeared after 1911.” [source]
There were also innumerable domestic shrines of varying size. Wealthy individuals could afford a large carved altar with full set of five ritual vessels and an ornately painted “joss” scroll. We find an example of such in a wood engraving published in 1875 by Harper’s Weekly. A very similar household shrine is seen in the photography of R. J. Waters who operated a studio in San Francisco around 1900 (see both below).
From Harper’s Weekly, “Sketches in Chinatown, San Francisco,” 22 May 1875 [source][compare here]
R.J. Waters, “280 Joss Private Shrine,” c. 1900 [source]
But what do we know about the simplest of household shrines? Not long after Waters’ photograph, San Francisco’s Board of Health blamed Chinatown’s residents for fears of a potential outbreak of the plague. This led to razing of several buildings in 1903. Documentary photographs taken at the time show some of the poorest areas of the neighborhood where structures were removed. One photograph proves that even the simplest of Chinatown’s abodes still maintained a small shrine, made from an altar of stacked bricks (see below). Its notable that all three domestic shrines depicted here display the same trio of icons: Guandi flanked by his adoptive son, Guan Ping 關平, and his subordinate general, Zhou Cang 周倉. These three figures appear in the Ming novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms, a source for the development of much popular religious lore in the following centuries.
R.J. Waters, “Interior of living quarters to be demolished,” 1903. [source][also here]
It is unknown how many altars, shines, and icons were destroyed by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire, but a reasonable response would be in the many thousands. This is far beyond the dozen or so joss houses mapped by various authorities at the end of the nineteenth century. We also know of some stories of survival. At least one delicately carved wooden alcove, possibly originally containing a icon of Water Moon Guanyin, was recovered by the Hee family as they fled the oncoming fires [here]. This remains material evidence of the importance of the cult of Guanyin in San Francisco’s Chinatown at the turn of the twentieth century. Such evidence helps corroborate the observations of one visitor, writing in 1883, who noted the popularity of Guanyin among the residents of Chinatown, claiming, “her image or portrait occupies a prominent corner of every private home as well as temple.”
About this Project
Many nineteenth and early twentieth photographs and illustrations of Chinese American religious sites remain unidentified because they are often labeled or captioned as generic “joss houses.” To facilitate identification, I’ve compared contemporary written accounts with objects from the visual record of Chinatown, cross referencing them with maps and listed addresses of known temples. The end product was the identification of several images of unknown religious sites and the location of several temples of which we only had a written description. I’m publishing my working notes here for a basic map of the Chinatown temples I’ve identified. I have used the 1887 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map as the basis for the main map in consultation with the 1885 San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors’ Map and the 1905 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map to help track changes over time (see resources below). Ultimately, this is the byproduct of a larger project I am currently working on regarding the material culture of early Asian American religions with a focus on early American Buddhist traditions.
I welcome any questions or comments: peter.romaskiewicz[at]gmail.com.
Referenced Print Resources:
Chinn, Thomas W. 1989. Bridging the Pacific: San Francisco Chinatown and Its People. San Francisco: Chinese Historical Society of America. [Internet Archive]
Densmore, G. B. 1880. The Chinese in California: Description of Chinese Life in San Francisco. Their Habits, Morals, and Manners. San Francisco: Pettit & Russ. [source]
Ho, Chuimei, and Bennet Bronson. 2022. Chinese Traditional Religion and Temple in North America, 1849–1920: California. Seattle: Chinese in Northwest America Research Committee.
Masters, Frederic J. 1892. “Pagan Temples in San Francisco.” Californian Illustrated Magazine, November: 727–741.
Masters, Frederic J. 1895. “The Chinese Drama.” The Chautauquan 21 (4): 432–42.
Online Resources:
Chinese in Northwest America Research Committee [This group published an initial map of Chinatown organizations in 2018 (here). I owe the initial impetus of creating a temple map to the outstanding editors of this website.]
In the ongoing attempt to identify Japanese picture postcards (ehagaki絵葉書) in my collection, I’ve decided to publish my working notes on identifying early twentieth century Japanese postcard publishers.
Moreover, using Urakawa Kazuya’s 浦川和也 four-period chronology as a foundation, I try to catalog variant designs printed on the reverse (atena-men 宛名面, “address side”) by each publisher as well as different letterpress captioning styles on the obverse (egara [or shashin]-men 絵柄[写真]面, “design [or photograph] side,” or tsūshin-men 通信面, “communication side”)[1].
The goal is to help identify cards that do not bear a publisher’s name or trademark (shōhyō 商標, rogumāku ロゴマーク) – an easily fallible endeavor.
The information below is mostly gleaned from Japanese sources (both print and digital) as well as some personal observations. I emphasize that this post represents my “working notes” – I will update it as time allows.
Moreover, Japan was among the largest producers of postcards during the early twentieth century, thus the research below is far from exhaustive and directly reflects my personal interests. I am mainly interested in hand-tinted photomechanically reproduced cards from the late Meiji and early Taishō eras (there is, for example, a large collectors market for artist picture postcards [bijutsu ehagaki 美術絵葉書] which I do not cover).
Topically, I am interested in landscape scenery (fūkei 風景) – specifically of Japanese religious sites – so my research skews in this direction. There is a list of helpful references at the end of this post.
Please contact me if you can provide any other information or resources about Japanese postcard publishers, or any other oversights and errors: peter.romaskiewicz[at]gmail[dot]com.
A Brief History of Publishing Postcards in Meiji and Early Taishō Japan
The commercial market for photography in Japan grew significantly in the 1860s and 1870s with the arrival of globetrotting tourists seeking souvenirs of their exotic travels in Asia. The primary port of entry for travelers entering Japan during the Meiji era was Yokohama which emerged as the center of this competitive commercial industry. Yokohama shashin 横浜写真, or “Yokohama photography,” came to denote the particular fusion of Western technology and Japanese craftsmanship as monochromatic prints were hand colored by artists to produce vibrant, eye-catching scenes. Throughout the 1880s and 1890s Japanese owned photography studios grew in number and significance, slowly displacing their Western counterparts who had bigger shares of the market in the 1860s and 1870s. Moreover, as travel restrictions were lifted for foreigners and domestic interest in photography increased, Japanese owned photography studios started to successfully populate more diverse urban areas throughout Japan. The aesthetic cultivated by these early photography studios would have a great influence on the first domestic publishers of postcards in Japan.
The Japanese postal delivery service began in March 1871 and soon joined the Union Postale Universelle (bankoku yūbin rengō 萬国郵便聯合) in June 1877, thus permitting the sending and receiving of international mail (although several countries maintained foreign post offices in select Japanese cities earlier). The first postal card (hagaki 端書) in Japan was issued in December 1873, but until the end of the nineteenth century all cards were government-issued (kansei 官製). These are identifiable through prepaid franking printed on the address side (i.e. reverse) of the card. The obverse remained blank to accommodate a written message.
Changes in postal codes on October 1, 1900 allowed private companies to publish picture postcards (ehagaki絵葉書) where an illustration or design could be included on the back (until the adoption of a “divided back” reverse design in April 1907, the sender’s message also had to be written on the obverse side). Two years later, the government started to produce its own commemorative picture postcards. These changes altered the landscape of the postcard market and starting a new cultural phenomenon.
For private-issued (shisei 私製) cards, photographic imagery soon became the favored visual expression and many images from Japanesephotography studios were initially used for this new medium. These images were photomechanically reproduced through an inexpensive planographic printing technique known as the collotype (korotaipu コロタイプ), introduced commercially in Japan by Ogawa Kazumasa 小川 一眞 (1860-1929) in 1889. Multi-color collotype printing was very difficult to execute, thus many early twentieth-century postcard publishers employed artists who hand-painted the cards with washes of watercolor (some colors, like red, contained stronger pigmentation). Consequently, the aesthetic of Yokohama shashin that developed in the early Meiji period continued into the early Taishō era through this new visual medium.
The Russo-Japanese War from 1904 to 1905 initiated what is now referred to as a “picture postcard boom” (ehagaki būmu 絵葉書ブーム or ehagaki ryōko 絵葉書流行). Postcards were sold all throughout Japan, especially in urban centers. One could find postcard specialty shops in cities like Yokohama, Tokyo, Kyoto, or Kobe. Moreover, many other businesses became involved in the lucrative postcard market, including photography studios, printing shops, booksellers, souvenir stores, and even temples. The larger publishers would sell their stock wholesale to other stores, thus canvassing the country with inexpensive photographic images of landscapes, city scenes, portraits of geisha, actors, the royal family, daily activities, war scenes, natural disasters, and so forth. At least one publisher, Ueda Photographic Prints Corp., had a retailer directly sell their products in New York City.
Infrequently, publishers would inconspicuously print their name and address on the card. It slowly became common, though far from standard, for larger publishers to print their signature trademark or logo on the card, most commonly in the stamp box (kitte ichi 切手位置) on the reverse side. While this would aesthetically frame the trademark, once a stamp was affixed it would also render the publisher anonymous. It is also possible to locate a publisher’s name or insignia elsewhere on the card, for example as part of the dividing line or in the letterpress caption. Some publishers would also inconspicuously hide their insignia, such as Ueda or Tonboya, as discussed below.
In too many cases, however, there is little identifying evidence to ascertain the publisher of a card. (In this industry of mass-production, it goes without saying that identifying the original photographer or individual colorist is, sadly, impossible.) Elsewhere I have described a method to help determine otherwise anonymous publishers, and I consider this entry a further exploration of this endless, though enjoyable, quest. Unfortunately, I would not claim attributions here to be assured, only my best guesses.
Ueda Photographic Prints Corp.
上田写真版合資会社
Ueda Yoshizō
Born in Tokyo, Ueda Yoshizō 上田義三 (1865–?) found employment after college in the oldest German export trading company in the capital, Aherns & Co. (Ārensu shōkai アーレンス商会), founded by Heinrich Aherns in 1869. In the mid-1890’s, after Ueda toured Europe and America, he returned to Japan to open his first business venture in 1897 (Meiji 30), the Yokohama Photographic Printing Co. 横浜写真版印刷所 first located on Yatozaka Slope 谷戶坂. In 1905 (Meiji 38) the business moved to Okina-chō3-chōme (No. 131) 翁町3丁目(131番) and around 1913 (Taishō 2) the business was renamed Ueda Photographic Prints Corp. 上田写真版合資会社 (the name “Uyeda” can be found printed on some postcards).
Ueda was highly successful in selling photographs and producing government-issued postcards on his own collotype printing equipment. Importantly, Ueda’s success in printing early landscape and figural picture postcards presaged the Japanese postcard boom after the Russo-Japanese War, thus he became recognized as the “Japanese Pioneer of Picture Postcard Manufacturing” 日本元祖絵葉書製造元. Īkura Tōmei 飯倉東明 (1884-?) worked as Udea’s director of photography in the first decade of the twentieth century. My analysis of Ueda postcards from 1907–1918 can be found below.
Around 1905 (Meiji 38), Yoshimura Kiyoshi 吉村清, the proprietor of the well-known Tokyo-based publisher Kamigataya 上方屋 (in Ginza), started a new venture in Yokohama, called Tonboya トンボヤ, or “Dragonfly Studio.” [2] Along with Ueda, Tonboya was the most prolific hand-painted postcard publisher in late Meiji/early Taishō Japan, also opening offices in Tokyo, Kawasaki, and Yokosuka. The original shop was located on Isezaki-chō 2-chōme (No. 16) 伊勢佐木町2丁目(16番), a famous area known among foreigners as Theatre Street (see post frontispiece above). The storefront can easily be located in period photographs due to its distinctive Japanese-style red cylindrical postal box (yūbinposuto 郵便ポスト) sign painted with ehakaki エハカキ [sic], or “Picture Postcards.” The left-hand column of words on the white storefront sign says “photographic collotype printing.”
Kamigataya stamp box trademark
The postal box was also the trademark printed in the stamp box for Kamigataya issued cards. The precise business relationship between Kamigataya and Tonboya remains obscure.
Postal box signboard in Motomachi
Kamigataya appears to have had an officein the Motomachi district (Motomachi-dori 2-chōme [No. 85]) which also appears in period photographs, here saying “postal cards” (in some photographs, Kamigataya is visible on the front of the sign). In the early Showa Period after the Great Kantō earthquake, Tonboya moved to Izezaki-chō 1-chōme (No. 36) 1丁目(36番). Cards were initially hand-colored, but Tonboya used a multicolored collotype process starting in the early Taisho. Tonboya remained in operation after the Great Kantō Earthquake of 1923.
Tonboya Reverse Designs and Obverse Captions
Period I (October 1900-March 1907) – Undivided Back
Type 1: The characteristic dragonfly (tonbo) trademark is placed in the stamp box.Type 2: A variant dragonfly trademark is placed in the upper left-hand corner.Type 3: Even without the dragonfly seal, the characteristic serif font in dark/black ink can help identify the publisher. The same serif font, however, was also used by Kamigataya which is easily identified by the Japanese postal box trademark in the stamp box. With no identifying emblem it remains difficult to confidently identify the publisher as Tonboya or Kamigataya. Tonboya, however, seems to have regularly used black ink for the reverse while Kamkigataya seems to have preferred dark green or maroon. Moreover, Kamigataya cards are sometimes printed with the “UNION POSTALE UNIVERSELLE” header as narrower than “CARTE POSTALE” below.For Tonboya Types 1-3, the obverse captioning is typically in capital letters and finished with a period. Some captions include a stock number in parentheses. It should be noted that Kamigataya also used capital lettering in this period.
Period II (March 1907-March 1918)
Type 4: Dragonfly trademark with divided back and address lines. Variants exist with the rule lines for the name and address omitted.Type 5: No dragonfly trademark with divided back, here with rule lines for the name and address.Type 5 (variant): No dragonfly trademark with divided back, here without rule lines.Type 5 (variant): No dragonfly trademark with barred dividing line (top of line) and without rule lines.For Types 4-5, the obverse captions often incorporate a dragonfly facing downwards and to the left. A stock number in parentheses with a letter code indicating the location of the image is also sometimes included (e.g. Y=Yokohama). Note, however, this system is not universal, these designs can have the older captioning system of capital letters.Type 6 [Yokohama Jubilee](Japanese): This reverse design was printed for the 1909 fiftieth anniversary jubilee for the opening of Yokohama port. The symbol in the stamp box is the emblem of Yokohama. Notably, the reverse design bears the dragonfly as the ki キ.Type 6 [Yokohama Jubilee](English): Same design as above with English name and street address. The design also incorporates “MADE IN JAPAN” in the dividing line, suggesting this card was printed with US customs laws in mind. The Yokohama city insignia is also missing in the stamp box.For Type 6, the obverse captions have a dragonfly facing upwards to the left. Sometimes a stock number in parentheses is incorporated.Type 7 (blue): Around September 1909, “UNION POSTALE UNIVERSELLE” is removed and a new bilingual header is introduced. The dotted dividing line may or may not contain “MADE IN JAPAN.” Notably, the reverse design bears the dragonfly as the ki キ.Type 7 (umber): The reverse design is printed in blue, umber, or black.Type 7 (black): A barred line variant is also common.Type 7 (blue): Here with address linesFor Type 7, the obverse captions most typically have a dragonfly facing upwards with a stock number and letter identification in parentheses. There are, however, exceptions. The letterpress is commonly in italic print, but not always. At some point, the letter identification is printed in lower case. Confusingly, the Sakaeya publishing house 栄屋商店 lion is sometimes incorporated in the caption, even when the reverse design bears the dragonfly as the ki キ (!). I presume, but have no firm evidence, that Sakaeya purchased the card stock from Tonboya already imprinted with the reverse design (maybe even the front image?) and incorporated their lion insignia in the letterpress caption.
Period III (March 1918-February 1933)
Type 8: A bilingual header with a centered dividing line.Type 8: A minor variant of above with rounded, full-line stamp box.
Hoshinoya
星野屋
Yoshioka Chōjirō
Yoshioka Chōjirō 吉岡長次郎 arrived in Yokohama in 1904 (Meiji 37) with postcards purchased in Tokyo, hoping to turn a profit by reselling them to foreigners. After receiving numerous orders and making several trips back to Tokyo to restock, Yoshioka opened a shop in Yokohama at Onoe-chō 4-chōme, No. 61 尾上町4丁目(61番).
Possible display of cards at Hoshinoya
By the end of the Russo-Japanese War in the fall of 1905, he had collected many collotype plates of native landscapes and was very successful marketing to both foreigners and Japanese. Hoshinoya emerged as one of the most well-known postcard shops in the port of Yokohama.
Hoshinoya Reverse Designs and Obverse Captions
Period I (October 1900-March 1907) – Undivided Back
I have not yet confidently identified undivided back Hoshinoya cards.
Period II (March 1907-March 1918)
The Art Nouveau style “Carte Postale” is an easily identifying characteristic of Hoshinoya cards. I have also seen Nassen & Co. cards with this same font and scalloped stamp box, however, but cards with the Nassen & Co. imprint are far less common in the secondary market. In any regard, any reverse design with the publisher’s mark could be Hoshinoya or Nassen & Co. A variant style for “Carte Postale” can also be found. Note the stamp box is vertical.This reverse design, with French header and multilingual translation, is frustrating. Here, it is clearly identified by the Hoshinoya stamp box trademark. Without the stamp box insignia, however, this design is fairly common among cards in the secondary market. I had previously believed cards without a printer’s insignia were an Ueda product (Type 2), but I also have found evidence suggesting this design was used by Tonboya as well. In any regard, only Hoshinoya’s trademark can be found on cards I have seen (thus far) of this design. Yet, not only is the sans-serif font uncharacteristic of Hoshinoya cards of this period, this publisher often used “Union Postale Universelle” as a header; this phrase is absent on the card here. It suffices to say that it was surprising to find a Hoshinoya insignia on this reverse design. It remains possible that this reverse design (without the Hoshinoya trademark) was shared among several printers (see, e.g., Sakaeya below). Unfortunately, I am not sure this will ever be resolved with certainty.Reverse printed in umber, see my comments directly above.
Period III (March 1918-February 1933)
Period III using the Art Nouveau style “Carte Postale.”Hoshinoya is also clearly indicated on the obverse of this card, thus connecting the sans-serif font to the card design noted above. I am unsure of this identification, but I take the star at the top of the dividing bar to indicate the Hoshinoya trademark.I am also unsure of this identification, It seems that Hoshinoya started to use a light blue more regularly for the reverse designs, so I include this one here.Hoshinoya relocated to Nikko and started to produce sets of this locale. Backs are also printed in Japanese.
Sakaeya & Co.
栄屋商店
Sakaeye storefront in Motomachi, Kobe
A Kobe based company with a shop in Motomachi, Kobe. A majority of this publisher’s cards are of Kobe and its environs, but there are other images among its portfolio. Curiously, I have seen Sakaeya’s lion insignia in the caption of images that were printed on cards bearing both Ueda’s and Tonboya’s seals on the reverse. I’d speculate that Sakaeya purchased Ueda and Tonboya cardstock and used it to print their own cards. It seems likely they mainly sold them in Kobe with the lion insignia imprinted on the front. Period III cards also bare the insignia of Taisho Hato (see below), a dove with is wings spread open.
Sakaeya Reverse Designs and Obverse Captions
Period II (March 1907-March 1918)
Ueda publisher back with Sakeya insignia in obverse caption.Tonboya publisher back with Sakeya insignia in obverse caption.Sakaeya captions typically use stock numbers with letter identification (most are K for Kobe), sometimes inside parentheses. The letterpress is sometimes italicized. While the lion insignia is printed in the bottom right corner, sometimes the Sakeya name is also included by the stock identification number. It is uncommon for landscape postcards to have the Sakaeya name or insignia printed on the reverse.
Period III (March 1918-February 1933)
Sakaeya continued to use Udea cards stock for their postcards into Period IIIEventually, Sakaeya incorporated the lion insignia into the stamp box.Later period captions sometimes still incorporate the Sakaeya lion insignia, but it gets removed when the name and insignia are incorporated on the reverse. Sakaeya also started to use two lines of letterpress.
Naniwaya Co. 浪華屋 (Kanda, Tokyo 東京神田) – [later became Tokyo Design Printing Co. 東京図按(vl. 案)印刷社; Kuroda Hisayoshi 黒田久吉]
Nassen & Co. (Yoshioka-chō, Yokohama) – interlaced N and S atop floral design
Nisshinsha (Tokyo 東京)
S.N. Banshiudo 長島萬集堂 [Nagashima banshūdō](Shiba, Tokyo 東京芝)
Taisho Hato Brand 大正鳩ブランド (Wakayama 和歌山)
Tōdai-ji 東大寺 (Nara 奈良)
Notes
[1] The nomenclature for the sides of the postcard derived from their original design where one side was reserved solely for the address, while the other was reserved for the written message, and eventually, a printed image. These are also known as the reverse (rimen 裏面) and obverse (hyōmen 表面).
Kamigataya storefront displaying postcards for sale.
[2] Some sources name the proprietor as Maeda Tokutarō 前田徳太郎, but I have not seen this name in printed Japanese sources. Some sources note 1907 (Meiji 40) as the date for the founding of Tonboya. A Kamigataya sign and display of postcards can also be found in the Motomachi district of Yokohama.
Resources
Print Resources [selected]
Barclay, Paul D. 2010. “Peddling Postcards and Selling Empire: Image-Making in Taiwan under Japanese Colonial Rule.” Japanese Studies, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 81-110.
Geary, Christraud & Webb, Virginia-Lee, eds. 1998. Delivering Views: Distant Cultures in Early Postcards. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Handy, Ellen. 1998. “Japonisme and American Postcard Visions of Japan: Beauties and Workers, Cherry Blossoms and SIlkworms.” In Delivering Views: Distant Cultures in Early Postcards, edited by Christraud Geary and Virginia-Lee Webb, 91–114. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Hibata Sekko 樋畑雪湖. 1936. Nihon ehagaki shichō 日本絵葉書史潮 [The History of Japanese Picture Postcards]. Tokyo: Nihon Yûken Kurabu.
Itō Izumi 伊藤泉美. 2001. “Tsuioku No Yokohama: Ehagaki Ni Miru 100-Nen Mae No Hitobito to Fūkei 追憶の横浜: 絵葉書にみる100年前の人びとと風景 [Memories of Yokohama: Postcards of People and Scenery from 100 Years Ago].” Kaikō No Hiroba 開港のひろば / Yokohama Kaikō Shiryōkan 横浜開港資料館 [Yokohama Archives of History], Vol. 71. [http://www.kaikou.city.yokohama.jp/journal/images/kaikouno-hiroba_71.pdf]
Kamakura Board of Education 鎌倉市教育委員会. 2011. Ehagaki de miru Kamakura hyakkei 絵葉書で見る鎌倉百景 [One Hundred Views of Kamakura through Postcards].[photos]
Maclachlan, Patricia L. 2011. The People’s Post Office: The History and Politics of the Japanese Postal System, 1871-2010. Harvard University Asia Center.
Matsumoto Hiroyuki 松本洋幸. 2012. “Yokohama No Shashin-Kan No Ayumi – 1860’s~1960’s 横浜の写真館の歩み －1860’s～1960’s [History of Photo Studios in Yokohama – 1860’s – 1960’s].” Kaikō No Hiroba 開港のひろば / Yokohama Kaikō Shiryōkan 横浜開港資料館 [Yokohama Archives of History], Vol. 115.
Morse, Anne Nishimura; Rimer, J. Thoma & Brown, Kendall H. 2004. Art of the Japanese Postcard. Boston: MFA Publications a Division of the Museum of Fine Arts.
O’Connor, Peter & Cohen, Aaron M. 2001. “Thoughts on the Precipice: Japanese Postcards, c.1903–39,” Japan Forum, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 55-62.
Pai, Hyung Il. 2013. “Staging ‘Koreana’ for the Tourist Gaze: Imperialist Nostalgia and the Circulation of Picture Postcards,” History of Photography, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 301-311.
Saitō Takio 斎藤多喜夫. 1985. “Yomigaeru Shinsaizen No Yokohama Fūkei よみがえる震災前の横浜風景 [Reviving the Scenery of Yokohama Before the Earthquake].” Kaikō No Hiroba 開港のひろば / Yokohama Kaikō Shiryōkan 横浜開港資料館 [Yokohama Archives of History], Vol. 12. [http://www.kaikou.city.yokohama.jp/journal/images/kaikouno-hiroba_12.pdf]
Saitō Takio 斎藤多喜夫. 1986. “‘Pedorā Korekushon Ehagaki Ni Miru Shinsaizen No Yokohama Fūkei’-Ten Yow『ペドラー・コレクション絵葉書にみる震災前の横浜風景』展余話 [A Side Note from the Exhibition ‘Scenery of Yokohama before the Earthquake as Seen on Postcards from the Peddler Collection’].” Kaikō No Hiroba 開港のひろば / Yokohama Kaikō Shiryōkan 横浜開港資料館 [Yokohama Archives of History], Vol. 13.
Satō Kenji. 2002. “Postcards in Japan: A Historical Sociology of a Forgotten Culture.” International Journal of Japanese Sociology, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 35-55.
Schor, Naomi. 1992. “Cartes Postales”: Representing Paris 1900,” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 188-244
Urakawa Kazuya 浦川和也. 2006. “Ehagaki de Chōsen sōtokufu o miru: ‘Chōsen hantō ehagaki’ no shiryōteki kachi to naihōsareta ‘mezashi.'” Shuka 朱夏, Vol. 21., pp. 39-52.
Yokohama Open Port Museum横浜開港資料館, ed. 1999. Hyaku-nen mae no Yokohama Kanagawa: Ehagaki de miru fūkei 100年前の横浜・神奈川: 絵葉書でみる風景. Kyoto: 有隣堂.
Digital Collections:
Museum of Fine Arts Boston: Art of the Japanese Postcard
Introduction: Identifying publishers for early twentieth-century Japanese postcards can be daunting. Publishers oftentimes omit their name or trademark – or in the case of some postally used cards, the trademark is printed in the stamp box, under the stamp.
I have stumbled upon two methods for tentatively identifying publishers of unknown cards. One method is to trace the image on the obverse (tsūshin-men 通信面, “communication side”) of the unknown card to a different printed postcard with shared image where the publisher is clearly indicated. This process is not fool-proof, however. Some images seem to have become the common property of several publishing houses, especially when considering older photographic stock commonly seen on the “undivided period” of cards (early Japanese laws only provided five to ten years of copyright protection, see Bennett 2006a: 123, Bennett 2006b: 308). Moreover, it is possible that the rights to certain photographs were sold between publishing house – or outright pirated – thus making definitive identification difficult.
The second method is to identify the distinctive printing designs on the reverse (atena-men 宛名面, “address side”) of an unknown postcard and determining any plausible relationships between variant cards where the publisher is identified (e.g. matching general design, fonts, printing colors, etc.).
Using a combination of these two methods I propose the following identification for Ueda Photographic Prints Corporation 上田写真版合資会社 (historically Romanized as “Uyeda”) postcards printed between 1907 and 1918 (corresponding to Period II of Urakawa Kazuya’s 浦川和也 chronology). For a brief history of the company see here.
I identify five variant “types” that appear to follow a general chronological sequence, arranged into two “phases.” Much more work needs to be done to determine if an earlier type or phase ends with the introduction of a new type or phase, or if they were printed concurrently. The basic principle follows that the final type in the second phase (see below), Ueda incorporated its crest/trademark [a stylized “Ueda” 上田, see Figure 1] atop the dividing line on the reverse of the card. Thus, if any connection can be established to older variants without the publisher’s mark, they too would possibly (or even likely) be Ueda products.
Figure 1: The Ueda Photographic Prints Corp. trademark/crest.
Again, I have accomplished this by matching cards with the same obverse image but different reverse designs (as seen here) and complemented this procedure by looking for overarching similarities among different exemplars in the printing and design on the reverse. The design of the reverse is the most distinctive aspect of mass-produced postcards, and identifying the font, ink color, or overall design may help in determining publishers (see a Hoshinoya exemplar here). For Udea, the multilingual printing on the reverse in umber brown (or burgundy) ink appears as one of its most easily identifiable hallmarks. An outline of the progressive changes (Type 1 to Type 5) for Udea’s reverse printing is found below.
Relative Chronology of Ueda Cerulean-Umber Design from 1907–1918 (Urakawa Period II)
Urakawa Period II – Phase I (German or French header)
Type 1 (top card above): divided back; topped with German “Postkarte” header [TPQ 1907]
Type 2 (second card from top): divided back; topped with French “Carte Postale” header and imprinted with “Made in Japan” in dividing line (or sometimes in the bottom left corner)[TPQ 1907] (Update: I have found images that have also matched to later Tonboya backs, this identification needs more consideration.)
Notes: As of June 2024, I possess a Type 1 “German” header on an undivided back card (Urakawa Period I, pre-1907) with the old Udea company name printed along the side edge in Japanes. The header is printed in burgundy. I have yet to locate a Period II/Type 1 card with Ueda’s name, but believe there are grounds to make the association between the Period I and Period II/Type 1 cards. Type 2 cards switched from German to French headers. I have yet to find a Period II/Type 2 specimen on an undivided back, but the same sans-serif “Carte Postale” type (omitting the other languages) is found on undivided cards. Some sources claim that foreign language designations (i.e. non-Japanese) only appeared in 1905, but I have found that to be inaccurate. [There are two more types of Urakawa Period II cards not published here, I am still gathering more information.]
Urakawa Period II – Phase 2 (French-German-English header)
Type 3 (middle card): divided back; topped with French-German-English header and imprinted with “Made in Japan” in dividing ling, capped by single bar [appears c.1910]
Type 4 (second card from bottom): same as Type 3, but with a double bar capping the dividing line; possibly coincidental, this resembles the trademark for the Japanese Post Office (〒) [appears c.1910]
Type 5 (bottom card): same as Type 3, but with Udea crest capping the dividing line [appears c.1912]
Notes: These types all also contain the following ten languages in order: Italian, Estonian, Czech, Polish, Dutch, Austrian, Spanish, Sweedish, Norwegian, and Russian. Type 4 variants exist with “Made in Japan” imprinted on the short edge of the card.
As of June 2024, I now posses a Period II/Type 4 card with “Printed by Uyeda, Yokohama” on the side edge (Caption on the obverse: “Ogosho, Kyoto”). When considering the fact that I have not yet found Period II/Type 3 or Period II/Type 4 cards with a different publisher’s name strongly suggests there is firm grounding to assume Period II/Type 3 and Period II/Type 4 cards are the products of the Udea publishing house.
Color Variations on the Reverse of Ueda Postcards from 1907-1918 (Urakawa Period II)
The color of the ink on the Ueda reverse can vary between a burgundy red, light or dark orange, and cinnamon or umber brown (see below). It is difficult to determine if these distinctive hue variations were intended or are due to printing irregularities, light fading, or general aging. Regardless, these ink colors stand out in comparison to the blues and black used by several other contemporary publishers (Tonboya and Hishinoya specifically). Because a large portion of Ueda cards are brown or dark brown, I use the term “umber” as an umbrella term to include the variant warm color inks.
Color Variations on the Obverse of Ueda Postcards from 1907-1918 (Urakawa Period II)
Turning to the front of the card, captioning was a fairly common practice among many postcards publishers and is not a viable way, in isolation, to identify Ueda prints. In addition, not all Udea postcards are captioned, especially more generic images, such as those of geisha. Nevertheless, an immense amount of Ueda cards are captioned bilingually in English and Japanese in a cerulean or cobalt blue ink. Sometimes a caption is printed in another color, such as brown, but this is rare and most are printed in a light to dark cerulean blue (see below). After 1917, however, Ueda revamps its design and more captions are printed in scarlet red. This is just another factor to consider when assessing the origins of a postcard. Irregularly, some captions are printed with an index number on the lower left, but this was far more common among the Tonboya publishing house.
After 1918…
When shifting to Period III of Urakawa‘s chronology, the postal regulations move the dividing line to the middle of the postcard in 1918, and Ueda follow suit by shifting the crest-capped line to the center of the card. In this new period, I have seen this dividing line position with the Type 5 and Type 2 design, and have also seen a new design absent the multilingual translations.
Overall, I only offer this typology and chronology as a possible starting point for historical research, as more work remains to be done to develop a more robust history of Ueda postcard printing. Unsurprisingly, there is a lot more research on the Yokohamashashin 横浜写真 (“Yokohama photography”) industry which produced many of the oldest and most significant tourist photographs of Meiji Japan. Much more research will be necessary to identify the photographers of these inexpensive and mass-produced postcards.
Notes:
I have found at least two different Urakawa Period I Udea backs. One is Type 1 (as noted above). Another has a “Union Postale Universelle” header in serif font, with “Carte Postale” in serif font underneath.
Prelude: Within a decade after the Kamakura Daibutsu was “discovered” by non-Japanese foreigners in the 1860s, it emerged as a requisite tourist destination for globetrotters hoping to document their trips to exotic, picturesque locals. Photographic images taken by professional studios and amateur photographers soon started to circulate and by the first few decades of the twentieth century the imagery of the Kamakura Daibutsu began to exert a significant impact on American print media and other commodities.
Many thousands of photographs were taken of the Kamakura colossus between 1860 and 1930, but reliably dating many of these images remains a difficult task. It is my hope to provide a few suggestions on criteria which can be used to determine the relative age of old photographs of the Kamakura Daibutsu. I am primarily interested in determining the when the photographic negative was exposed, not when the photographic document was printed or published, both subsequent events that could happen at considerably later dates. An extraordinarily helpful resource has been the Metadata Database of Japanese Old Photographs In Bakmatsu-Meiji Period, hosted by the Nagasaki University Library. Several of the items below are part of my personal Archive.
Methods: Precisely dating the photographs of many professional Yokohama studios can be difficult. One method for determining the age of a photograph involves dating the album into which it was collated. Many title pages of old tourist albums did not include publication dates, thus other information – such as investigating the named partners of the firm or the address of the studio, among other details – need to be compared with known facts to best ascertain its age. Sometimes the owner of the album inscribed the book with a date, thus helping to determine an album’s possible age.
This method not without its own difficulties. New studios would buy (or pirate) the negative stock of older studios, and thus certain photos were reproduced for decades after they were first taken. Consequently, knowing the publication date of a photograph only provides us with a terminus ante quem, or the date before which the negative was necessarily exposed.
In addition, unless we are privy to the travel schedules of professional photographers in Japan (or Yokohama specifically), we may only know the period of a photo’s creation to within the span of several years. In some cases, the dating of amateur tourist photography, more common by the late 1880’s, can be more precise. For example, published travelogues or information gleaned by accounts written in newspapers can provide information regarding the season or even the month or day an intrepid photographer visited a site. I will utilize all of these methods to establish a framework of absolute dates, which will be interspersed with additional photos based on relative dating and sequencing. I can only hope this may assist in determining the creators of several studio albumen and silver-gelatin prints which now remain anonymous or contested.
Executive Summary: The easiest way to estimate the age for the negative exposure of a Kamakura Daibutsu photograph is to examine the coin donation box (saisen–bako 賽銭箱) directly in front of the offering table. In the oldest photos, the donation box starts as an unadorned, mid-thigh height wooden box. A terminus post quem for the summer of 1877 can be established for the small gabled roof attached to the top of the box. In addition, a terminus post quem of November 1890 can be established for the picketed fence surrounding the box. In the early twentieth century, the arrangement of the lotus flowers on the offering table are the best means for estimating a date. Even more precise methods for estimating age are discussed below. The basic abbreviations are as follows:
TAQ: terminus ante quem [the negative was exposed before this date]
TPQ: terminus post quem [the negative was exposed after this date]
Contact: Please contact me (Peter) should you wish to offer any thoughts or insights, it will be much appreciated! Email: peter.romaskiewicz[at]gmail[dot]com.
Sequential Chronology: 01
Date: c. late 1864/early January 1865 TAQ: January 1865
Information: Found in albums sold by Felice Beato (1832–1909) before his studio fire in 1866, this image is often dated to 1863 when Beato first arrived in Yokohama and toured with the Swiss diplomat Aimé Humbert. Some prints are alternatively dated to January 1865 and a full-page engraving of this photo was published in the Illustrated Times on October 28, 1865, establishing a firm terminus ante quem. Humbert’s account was first published in 1866 and included an engraving of this photograph. It has been suggested that Beato is the man sitting on the left (Bennett 1996: 140). [A similar framing, without people, can be found here and here, with the last inscribed with the date 1864.] As of June 2024, I believe this negative was exposed November/December 1864 or January 1865 at the latest.
Description: Large cast metal lotus petals sit as the base of the first landing which are partly obscured by a railing erected at the front end of the second landing. Fronds of a Japanese sago palm are visible at the left in front of the railing.
Sequential Chronology: 02
Date: c. 1868
Information: After the great Yokohama fire destroyed Beato’s studio in 1866, this photograph was part of the new negative stock made between 1867–1868 and sold to tourists at his new studio. This image is often dated to 1868.
Description: Here we see a clear view of the coin box in front of the offering table and the long, curled finials atop the metal lanterns. Also note the distinctive placement of the metal lotus flowers in the urn atop the offering table, especially the bend in the stem on the right-side flower. It is possible to see the uppermost tip of the large cast metal lotus petal in the lower right.
Sequential Chronology: 03
Date: TAQ: March 1870
Information: The National Library of New Zealand holds the same image. In that collection, the photograph is described as part of an “album of photographs compiled on cruises aboard HMS Endymion with the Flying Squadron,” which made an around-the-world voyage in 1869–1870, landing in Japan in April 1870. The National Library dates this image between 1867–69 and suggests Beato as photographer, but this is incorrect. I have seen this image in Wilhelm Burger’s (1844–1920) A Series of 56 Views of Towns, Villages, etc. in Japan, published in 1871 (for more on Burger, see below). This would date the image to late 1869 or early 1870. Burger left Japan in March 1870. I discuss this further here.
Description: Same as above but two small altar implements have been added between the pair of flower urns and the central incense burner.
Sequential Chronology: 04
Date: c. 1870; TAQ: May 30, 1870
Information: John Reddie Black (1826/7–1880) published the first issue of The Far East: A Monthly Illustrated Journal at the end of May 1870 and included a photograph of the Daibutsu. No photo credit is provided in the publication, but the same image is attributed to Wilhelm Burger (1844–1920), who traveled in Japan from the Fall of 1869 to the Spring of 1870. It is possible that Burger’s negative came to Black through Michael Moser, Burger’s photographic assistant who became the staff photographer at the Far East (see Bennett 1996: 37 & 2006b: 90–91).
Description: The railing on the left has been removed, but the railing on the right remains intact. Otherphotographsattributed to Burger still show the left-side railing standing, however, suggesting its removal occurred during his travels in Japan. One Daibutsu photograph in a Burger album held by the British Museum, entitled A Series of 56 Views of Towns, Villages, etc. in Japan, depicts the left handrail as displaced and balusters tilted. One anonymous photograph depicts the damaged balusters of the left railing.
Sequential Chronology: 05
Date: TAQ: 1873
Information: This carte de visite print is attributed to Shimooka Renjo 下岡蓮杖 (1823–1914) in the Freer-Sackler Gallery archives. The reverse of the card indicates it was printed in 1873, providing a (presumably) reliable terminus ante quem. The photo was reproduced in Thomas Woodbine Hinchliff’s Over the Sea and Far Away in 1876. The image above was analyzed for the Visual Literacy of Buddhism series here.
Description: It is difficult to determine, but it appears the newel post of the railing atop the third landing on the right still remains. The railing on the left is clearly missing. The base of the stone marker at the bottom of the second landing noting the donation of the paving stones is also visible.
Sequential Chronology: 06
Date: TPQ: 1870; TAQ: 1877
Information: From the studio of Baron Raimund von Stillfried-Ratenicz (1839–1911), this image was sold as part of an album entitled Views and Costumes of Japan at the State Library of Victoria, which dates roughly to 1876, after the move of the Anderson & Stillfried studio in late 1875 and before the studio fire of January 1877. Stillfried opened his Yokohama studio in August 1871 and apprenticed in Beato’s Yokohama photography studio starting in 1870 (Bennet 2006a: 309).
Description: The railing on both sides atop the third landing has disappeared, but large cast metal lotus petals remain at the base of the second landing. The coin box is unadorned, the lamps have long finials, and the urns atop the offering table still hold metal lotus flowers.
Sequential Chronology: 07
Date: TPQ: 1870; TAQ: 1877
Information: The photographer is unknown.
Description: This image shows the damaged structure to the right of the Daibutsu (the same damaged structures is seen in another picture in the Archive). The roof here slopes north-south, and the newer building has an east-west sloping roof.
Description: It shows the overgrown temple grounds surrounding the Daibutsu before the major landscaping renovation. The long ladder is also featured in several other photos from this period. The small sign on the steps, placed there by Suzuki, reads: “Daibutsu Kamakura 仏大倉鎌.” The large cast metal petals at the base of the first landing are moved slightly from their original positions.
Sequential Chronology: 09
Date: Summer 1877
Information: William Henry Metcalf (1821–1892), arriving in Yokohama in June 1877 with the pioneering “Japanologist” Edward Sylvester Morse (1838–1925), set out on a four-month tour photographing the Japanese landscape. The image above was analyzed for the Visual Literacy of Buddhism series here.
Description: This image gives a definitive terminus ante quem for the small gabled roof atop the coin box and the removal of the metal lotus flowers from the urn on the offering table. It also shows that two large cast metal lotus petals were moved to rest against the pedestal of the Daibutsu before being removed altogether. The lamps still retain their long, curling finials. The new gabled roof structure can be seen to the right of the Daibutsu.
Sequential Chronology: 10
Date: TPQ: 1877; TAQ: 1879/80
Information: From the studio of Baron Franz von Stillfried-Ratenicz (1837–1916), this image at the Edinburgh Library (also numbered 351) was incorporated into a tourist volume entitled Views and Costumes of China & Japan, which dates from between 1879–1883. Franz (not to be confused with his brother, Raimund) opened his photography firm in 1879 (at 80 Main Street, as noted on the cover page), but he received negatives from his brother, Raimund, who previously owned a studio in Yokohama (Bennett 2006a: 139–140, 154). It remains undetermined who took this photograph.
Description: This image is important because it depicts a groomed temple landscape just previous to the major renovation project. The large cast metal lotus petals have been removed and replaced by small shrubs at the base of the first landing. The grass at the base second landing has been cut and the sago palm is more easily identifiable on the left. This image also shows that the metals lotuses atop the offering table remain missing. Additionally, the spiral finials on the lamps were removed before other signs of renovation work appeared. The stone marker at the base of the second landing noting the donation of the paving stones has also been removed.
NOTE: The sequence of photographs depicting temple renovation through 1896 remains highly conjectural. There are numerous small adjustments made in the landscaping and altar design, thus making it difficult to determine a precise chronology.
Description: Showing clear evidence of the renovation process, the urns holding the metal lotuses have also been removed altogether. It is claimed that construction lasted from 1877–1887, with donor name signboards (on the left above) appearing since1879. A wider view of the renovation project can be seen here.
Sequential Chronology: 12
Date: July 1882
Information: This image depicts the British globetrotter Francis Guillemard and his excursion party at the Kamakura Daibutsu. It may have been taken by Usui Shūzaburō 井秀三郎 (fl. 1867–1884), who was commissioned to take photographs during part of Guillemard’s trip (photo and information from Bennet 2006a: 226).
Description: This image shows plants placed in the urns atop the offering table and roof tiles in the structure at the left knee of the Daibutsu. Presumably, these tiles were used to roof the structure to the immediate right of the statue.
Description: This image is very similar to the Guillemard photograph above, but the plants in the urns on the altar are different.
Sequential Chronology: 14
Date: c. 1887
Information: Often attributed to Adolfo Farsari (1841–1898), this image, taken from an album entitled Photographs Relating to Japan, is commonly dated to after the fire at Farsari’s studio in 1886, and before he reopened his studio in 1887. (see also Bennett 2006b: 133). It was reprinted in William Caine’s A Trip Around the World in 1887–8, in 1888, thus providing a firm terminus ante quem for its printing.
Description: This image defies some expectations and I am unsure of my assessment. In an earlier version of this chronology, I speculated that the photograph may have been previous to 1879/80, but I now think the evidence better aligns with the more traditional c. 1887 dating. The gabled roof on the coin box and the lack of metal lotuses in the urns clearly indicate it was post-c. 1877. The branches placed in the urns are in accord with what is seen during the renovation of the early 1880s (but also see Usui image noted below). Curiously, the fact that the structure on the right of the Daibutsu has a gabled roof (not a hip roof) suggests the new building was not even started before all other signs of renovation were cleared away. In fact, it has been suggested the roofing tiles (for the new structure) can be seen piled up behind the offering table. The small shrubs at the base of the first landing may have been natural growth during the renovations (see previous image). Finally, the rather sturdy looking five-step ladder continues to be present for a while after the renovation. Part of my lack of confidence stems from a comparable photo attributed to Usui Shūzaburō 井秀三郎 (fl. 1867–1884) – but showing the lantern finials still attached. That image is definitively dated to c. 1877. In any regard, Farsari’s reputed image would have to post-date that, and considering my recent thoughts, that would be by about a decade.
Sequential Chronology: 15
Date: TPQ: c. 1887; TAQ: November 1890
Information: This photograph has been attributed to Tamamura Kōzaburō 玉村康三郎 (1856–1923?) and Kusakabe Kimbei 日下部金兵衛 (1841–1934)[for Kusakabe attribution see comments section here]. (Cf. Bennett 2006b: 140)
Description: This image shows a curious structure next to the Daibutsu, presumably a temporary structure before the hipped roof building was erected. Importantly, the metal lotus flowers have been placed back into the urns atop the offering table (note the slightly different arrangement from earlier), in positions they will remain for the next two decades. The foliage creeping in from the right of the frame suggests the row of evergreens are cropped out of this photograph (see next image).
Sequential Chronology: 16
Date: TPQ:c. 1887; TAQ: November 1890
Information: Three photographs regularly attributed to Tamamura Kōzaburō 玉村康三郎 (1856–1923?) are sequentially numbered 534, 535, and 536 (see Bennett 2006b: 152)[although Kimbei attributions exist]. These three photographs were taken on the same day (the small boy with the hat is seen in all three, here seen by the ladder on the pedestal)
Description: Number 535 is taken from the closest distance, and number 534 is taken slightly further away, showing the skinny evergreens at the base of the first landing on the left and a row of evergreens running down the second landing on the right (it is possible these were planted behind the Daibutsu as seen in later photographs). Number 536, shown above, is taken from the furthest distance, on the third landing, and shows more of the landscaping. Importantly, it depicts a small tree in front of the sago palms at the base of the second landing. The metal lotus flowers have been placed back into the urns atop the offering table (note the slightly different arrangement from earlier photographs). One can get a glimpse of the new hipped roof on the structure to the right of the statue between the evergreens.
Description: This image shows a more barren landscaping design, with the evergreens removed from the second landing and the tree removed from in front of the sago palms. Importantly, this landscaping was finished before the coin box was reconstructed and surrounded by a picketed fence. This photo clearly shows the new hip roof on the structure next to the Daibutsu, replacing the older gabled roof.
Sequential Chronology: 18
Date: November 1890
Information: Rev. Thomas Hobbs Stacy, armed with his Scovill camera rig, arrived in Yokohama on November 9, 1890 after nineteen days crossing the Pacific Ocean on the Belgic of the Occidental and Oriental Steamship Company (often abbreviated as O&O). Stacy does not inform us exactly when he visited Kamakura, but it was certainly in November, since by the middle of the month he was already setting sail to Kobe. He took the trip to the Daibutsu with his American travelling companion, Rev. Frank Weston Sanford, who was photographed sitting in the rickshaw, and Rev. Philip Wilson Pitcher, a missionary returning to Amoy, who was standing in the lap of the statue. Stacy also notes the presence of a small photography studio to the right of the Daibutsu, where local photographers would take photos of visitors. This information is summarized from the accounts Stacy wrote for The Amateur Photographer in May 1892 and his self-authored In the Path of Light Around the Worldin 1895. Shots with rickshaws were common in this period, I believe they were furnished by an on-site photography studio who hoped to give the shot a more exotic, Japanese feel.
Description: This image provides us with a reliable terminus ante quem for the fenced coin box positioned in front of the Daibutsu. (Of course, this fence could have been erected before 1890; notably, I have seen a photograph hand-dated to 1886 that does not show the picket fence.) Presumably, this is before the small shrubs were (re)planted at the base of the first landing since they are not seen in the foreground (see following photograph). Regrettably, not know if the outstretched sago palm has a dual-arm or single-arm support makes identifying the sequence for the next few photographs difficult.
Sequential Chronology: 19
Date: TPQ: November 1890?; TAQ: Spring 1896
Information: Sometimes attributed to Ogawa Kazumasa 小川 一眞 (1860–1929). (Cf. Bennett 2006b: 158)
Description: This image shows a row of small shrubs planted at the base of the first landing. replacing the young evergreens which were planted after the renovation. A dual-arm brace still supports the outstretched sago palm in the foreground. A small sign-board is also attached to the column of the building. It is possible this image was taken before Stacy’s photograph in November 1890 if the shrubs were planted and removed by the time of Stacy’s photograph. I cannot tell definitively if this was taken before or after the next photograph.
Sequential Chronology: 20
Date: TPQ: November 1890?; TAQ: Spring 1896
Information: Sometimes attributed to Kusakabe Kimbei 日下部金兵衛 (1841–1934). (Cf. Bennett 2006b: 159)
Description: This image shows a closer view of the Daibutsu with the shrubs in the foreground at the base of the landing. It is possible this image was taken before Stacy’s photograph in November 1890 if the shrubs were planted and removed by the time of Stacy’s photograph. I cannot tell definitively if this was taken before or after the previous photograph.
Sequential Chronology: 21
Date: TPQ: November 1890; TAQ 1894
Information: This photo is unattributed, but possibly belongs to Enami Nobukuni 江南 信國 (1859–1929) who has other shots from a similar angle. This photograph is published in Jame Clark’s Story of China and Japan, published in 1894, establishing a firm terminus ante quem.
Description: This image shows an unusual vantage point from the southwest corner. Importantly, it depicts the sago palms without their fronds (possibly from a cold-weather spell?). The outstretched palm at the base of the second landing is still upheld by a dual-arm brace. It appears the rows of shrubs at the base of the first landing have been removed?
Sequential Chronology: 22
Date: TPQ: November 1890?; TAQ Spring 1896
Information: Possibly attributable to Enami Nobukuni 江南 信國 (1859–1929) (see Bennet 2006a: 125).
Description: This image shows the removal of the small shrubs at the base of the first landing and the barren sago palm (a see previous image). As with the previous image, this could be older than November 1890. Note there is a later photograph captioned with stock number 41.
Sequential Chronology: 23
Date: TPQ: November 1890?; TAQ Spring 1896
Information: Attributed to Ogawa Kazumasa 小川 一眞 (1860–1929).
Description: This image in the Tom Burnett collection shows a single-arm support bracing the outstretched sago palm (replacing the dual-arm support) with the small shrubs still planted at the base of the first landing. It is difficult to ascertain this photograph’s sequential position, it too could have been taken before Stacy’s image in November 1890 if the shrubs, clearly taller here than in the previous photographs, were removed before Stacy visited the Daibutsu. If this was the case, then the single-arm support was also present by that time.
Sequential Chronology: 24
Date: TPQ: November 1890?; TAQ Spring 1896
Information: Possibly attributable to Enami Nobukuni 江南信國 (1859–1929) (see Bennet 2006a: 125).
Description: This image shows the removal of the small shrubs at the base of the first landing. As with the previous image, this could be older than November 1890. (A small detail in this image is the man holding an umbrella near the building and the step appear wet as well, indicating a rainy day. Stock photo 42 is also attributed to Enami, but it shows a sunny day.) Note there is an earlier photograph captioned with stock number 41.
Sequential Chronology: 25
Date: Spring 1896
Information: Henry A. Strohmeyer (1858–1943) arrived in Japan in the Spring of 1896 to take a series of stereophotographs that would eventually comprise a 72-view set. The image above was analyzed for the Visual Literacy of Buddhism series here.
Description: This is the first time a small placard is clearly visible resting by the right shin of the Daibutsu. Furthermore, a different stereocard from this set, including the same two pairs of Japanese men and women, takes a wider perspective of the landscaping and shows the outstretched sago palm is still upheld by a single-arm support. In both cards, the metal lotuses placed in the urns atop the offering table continue to face in opposite directions. This positioning of the lotuses (and small placard) remains in the first Keystone set (c. 1901) and the Stereoscopic Gems set and Universal set (both taken by Herbert Ponting late 1901 to early 1902). It is also found in the watercolor painting of Henry Roderick Newman (1843–1917), finished in 1898.
Sequential Chronology: 26
Date: 1903
Information: Returning to Japan to take photographs for Underwood & Underwood, Herbert Ponting traveled through Japan and its surroundings from Spring to Fall 1903. The image above was analyzed for the Visual Literacy of Buddhism series here.
Description: This image is important because it clearly shows that both lotus flowers are now facing away from the Daibutsu. The small placard remains by the right shin of the Daibutsu.
Description: It reveals that the single-arm support of the sago palm was replaced by a dual-arm support. There is also minor rain runoff damage by the stairs leading up to the second landing.
Sequential Chronology: 28
Date: TPQ: 1903
Information: The stereoscopic masterpiece by Enami Nobukuni 江南信國 (1859–1929) is analyzed here.
Description: The outward turned lotus flowers prove this image was taken after 1903. This image also shows that the new dual-arm support for the sago palm was replaced by a sturdier dual-arm support. There is also minor rain runoff damage by the stairs leading up to the second landing.
Sequential Chronology: 29
Date: TAQ: 1910
Information: Attributed to Ogawa Kazumasa 小川 一眞 (1860–1929) and published in his Sights and Scenes in Fair Japan from 1910. The second round-the-world cruise of the S.S. Cleveland landed in Japan in late February/early March 1910 and photos of the Daibutsu in the travelogue of William Frizell and George Greenfield depict a similar scene.
Description: The brace of the sago palm has been reinforced by a large single log and there is significant rain runoff damage to the base of the second landing by the stairs.
Sequential Chronology: 30
Date: TAQ: 1917
Information: The printed caption on this card is dated Taishō 6, or 1917. [A photograph in a private collection shows the picket fence still around the coin box in August 1912.]
Description: A low waist-high stone bench or table has been placed in front of the offering table. Additionally, the picket fence and gabled roof coin box appear to have been replaced with a new box. The old hip-roof structure on the right of the statue has also been altered.
Sequential Chronology: 31
Date: 1918
Information: James Maxwell Pringle took this photograph during his trip to Japan in 1918.
Description: The two lotus flowers still remain on the offering table, but the one on the right appears to be facing more towards the west. The small placard remains by the right shin of the Daibutsu. The slab bench/table appears to have been removed. After the removal of the gabled-roof and picket fence around the coin box (after August 1912), and the removal of the slab bench, the altar arrangement is very similar to pre-1877 photographs. The positioning of the flowers can help determine the correct age.
Description: The two lotus flowers still remain on the offering table, but at a different angle. It is difficult to know for certain, but the row of individuals immediately in front of the offering table is possibly on top of a low stone table or bench. In other photographs, the heads of people are typically below the top of the table, suggesting the tourists here are not standing directly on the ground.
Sequential Chronology: 33
Date: September 1923
Information: Postcard held at the Kanagawa Prefectural Library 神奈川県立図書館所蔵.
Description: This image shows the destruction of the Great Kantō earthquake to the pedestal of the Daibutsu and the building immediately to the right. The lamps and offering table have also been overturned. I have seen later photographs showing the bowed-leg offering table placed behind the Daibutsu. This image offers a good view of the new coin box introduced in the 1910s.
Sequential Chronology 34
Date: Between September 1923–December 1924
Information: Postcard envelope for eight card set of Kamakura views. The image above was analyzed for the Visual Literacy of Buddhism series here.
Description: The stone pedestal is braced by wood supports. The lanterns have also been reduced in size, but still remain on the third (top) landing. The bow-legged table has also been reconstructed, bu the incense burner and flower vases are now missing. The reconstruction of the base in late 1924 is visible in the album of Vera Talbot [unfortunately, the International Center of Photography only shows recto pages]. Talbot landed in Yokahama on December 15, 1924 on the S.S. President Taft of the Pacific Mail Company. I presume the above photo shows the intermediate process before full reconstruction since the lanterns will be fully reconstituted and placed on the second landing by early 1925 (see next entry).
Sequential Chronology: 35
Date: April 18, 1925 [dated on reverse – I previously thought it was inscribed “1920”]
Information: Unknown tourist photograph in the Archive.
Description:
This shows the finished reconstruction after the Great Kantō earthquake. Most noticeably in this photograph, the two metal lanterns have been removed from the first landing and placed on the second landing. The large offering table has been removed. Roped-off stakes are also (barely) visible around the pedestal of the statue. Various signs and placards have also been erected, including one on the left in the foreground saying “No Photographing Without Permission, by Prior.” The tall sign on the right says: “下門。金壹萬五千圆。文部省.” The structure to the right of the statue has been reconstructed with a lower profile roof.
Sequential Chronology: 36
Date: 1925
Information: Amateur American photographer Sidney Gamble (1890–1968) visited Asia on four occasions between 1908 and 1932. This photograph is from his 1925 trip to Japan.
Description: Landscape curbing has been added to both sides of the statue foundation, with what appears to be paving stones going around the statue. Roped stakes are also driven into the ground by the curbing, prohibiting closer access to the statue. A low, shin-height slab has been placed in front of the coin box (possibly for kneeling?). A small, low table with a round incense burner is placed between the coin box and foundation. Three small wooden placards are also visible. The large placard in the center possibly describes the damage to the Daibutsu during the Great Kantō earthquake (as seen in another photograph in the Archive). Additionally, in later photographs, a small placard is placed on top of the table giving the height dimension of the Daibutsu: “forty-two feet, five inches” (approximately 12.9 meters)[大佛身像總高ニ四十二尺五寸周圓十六間一尺重量二萬五十].
Sequential Chronology: 37
Date: 1935
Information: Amateur American photographer Mary Jo Read took this photograph on a trip to East Asia in 1935.
Description: The erosion next to the stairs is in the process of being fixed. The altar area now displays a taller table, on top of which the original incense bowl has been placed. A larger round urn has also been placed in front of the altar table, replacing the coin offering box, which now appears positioned on the right side. (Judging by a dated postcard in the Archive, this arrangement was in place by at least January 1931). Based on another photograph in the Archive, the left-hand sign atop the pedestal is bilingual describing the dimensions of the Daibutsu; the placard on the right describes the damage during the 1923 earthquake.
Description: The general altar arrangement has remained the same since the mid-1930s, but the censer on the altar has been traded out for one that is missing the “wings” seen on the original. The large round urn in front of the altar table has also changed. Both signs on the pedestal appear to have remained the same for the past decade.
![District Associations
2. Yeong Wo Association I (Yanghe huiguan 陽和會館)
6. Yeong Wo Association II (Yanghe huiguan 陽和會館)
8. Ning Yung Association II (Ningyang huiguan 寧陽會館)
10. Hop Wo Association (Hehe huiguan 合和會館)
14. Sam Yup Association II (Sanyi huiguan 三邑會館) [?]
17. Sam Yup Association I (Sanyi huiguan 三邑會館)
25. Sam Yup Association III (Sanyi huiguan 三邑會館)
27. Yan Wo Association (Renhe huiguan 人和會館)
34. Ning Yung Association I (Ningyang huiguan 寧陽會館)
X1. Sze Yup Association (Siba huiguan 四邑會館) Kong Chow Association (Gangzhou huiguan 岡州會館)
Clan Associations
1. Lung Kong Association (Longgang gongsuo 龍岡公所)
3. Lord Tam Temple (Tamgong miao 譚公廟)
12. Wong Kong Ha Shrine (Huang jiangxia黃江夏)
16. Gee Tuck Society (Zhide tang 至德堂)
16. Yee Fung Toy Soc. (Yufengcai tang 余風采堂)
Private Temples
2. Temple of Golden Flower (Jinhua miao 金花廟)
9. City God Temple (Chenghua miao 城隍廟)
14. Tin How Temple (Tianhou miao 天后廟)
16. Eastern Glory Temple II (Donghua miao 東華廟)
19. Guanyin Temple (Guanyin miao 觀音廟)
24. Eastern Glory Temple I (Donghua miao 東華廟)
30. Jackson Street Temple [?]
X2. Ah Ching’s Tin How Temple (Tianhou miao 天后廟)
Secret Societies
11. Hong Sing Society [?] / Dock Tin Society
13. Suey On Society (Ruiduan tang 瑞端堂)
15. Hip Sing Society (Xiesheng tang 協勝堂)
16. Hip Yee Society (Xieyi tang協義堂)
18. Chee Kong Society (Zhigong tang 致公堂)
20. Kai Sen Shea Society (Jishanshe tang 繼善社堂)
21. Bing Kong Society I (Binggong tang 秉公堂)
29. Bing Kong Society II (Binggong tang 秉公堂)
32. Suey Sing Tong (Cuisheng tang 萃勝堂)
33. Hop Sing Tong (Hesheng tang 合勝堂)
Guild Shrines
4. Washermen’s shrine
5. Chinese Merchant’s Exchange shrine
Other
7. Hang Far Low Restaurant
22. Chinese Telephone Exchange
23. Grand Chinese Theatre
26. New Chinese Theatre
28. St. George Temple
31. Yuen Fong Restaurant](https://peterromaskiewicz.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/romaskiewicz-map-of-temples-in-san-francisco-1850se280931906-aug-2025.jpg)
![District Associations
2. Yeong Wo Association I (Yanghe huiguan 陽和會館)
6. Yeong Wo Association II (Yanghe huiguan 陽和會館)
8. Ning Yung Association II (Ningyang huiguan 寧陽會館)
10. Hop Wo Association (Hehe huiguan 合和會館)
14. Sam Yup Association II (Sanyi huiguan 三邑會館) [?]
17. Sam Yup Association I (Sanyi huiguan 三邑會館)
25. Sam Yup Association III (Sanyi huiguan 三邑會館)
27. Yan Wo Association (Renhe huiguan 人和會館)
34. Ning Yung Association I (Ningyang huiguan 寧陽會館)
X1. Sze Yup Association (Siba huiguan 四邑會館) Kong Chow Association (Gangzhou huiguan 岡州會館)
Clan Associations
1. Lung Kong Association (Longgang gongsuo 龍岡公所)
3. Lord Tam Temple (Tamgong miao 譚公廟)
12. Wong Kong Ha Shrine (Huang jiangxia黃江夏)
16. Gee Tuck Society (Zhide tang 至德堂)
16. Yee Fung Toy Soc. (Yufengcai tang 余風采堂)
Private Temples
2. Temple of Golden Flower (Jinhua miao 金花廟)
9. City God Temple (Chenghua miao 城隍廟)
14. Tin How Temple (Tianhou miao 天后廟)
16. Eastern Glory Temple II (Donghua miao 東華廟)
19. Guanyin Temple (Guanyin miao 觀音廟)
24. Eastern Glory Temple I (Donghua miao 東華廟)
30. Jackson Street Temple [?]
X2. Ah Ching’s Tin How Temple (Tianhou miao 天后廟)
Secret Societies
11. Hong Sing Society [?] / Dock Tin Society
13. Suey On Society (Ruiduan tang 瑞端堂)
15. Hip Sing Society (Xiesheng tang 協勝堂)
16. Hip Yee Society (Xieyi tang協義堂)
18. Chee Kong Society (Zhigong tang 致公堂)
20. Kai Sen Shea Society (Jishanshe tang 繼善社堂)
21. Bing Kong Society I (Binggong tang 秉公堂)
29. Bing Kong Society II (Binggong tang 秉公堂)
32. Suey Sing Tong (Cuisheng tang 萃勝堂)
33. Hop Sing Tong (Hesheng tang 合勝堂)
Guild Shrines
4. Washermen’s shrine
5. Chinese Merchant’s Exchange shrine
Other
7. Hang Far Low Restaurant
22. Chinese Telephone Exchange
23. Grand Chinese Theatre
26. New Chinese Theatre
28. St. George Temple
31. Yuen Fong Restaurant](https://peterromaskiewicz.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/romaskiewicz-map-of-temples-in-san-francisco-1850se280931906-legend-aug-2025.png)
A variant style for “Carte Postale” can also be found. Note the stamp box is vertical.
Akanishi (Kobe 神戸)
Asahidō (Kyoto 京都)
Benrido 便利堂 (Kyoto 京都)[no trademark, but uses distinctive font – 
Hōeidō 保永堂 (Kamakura 鎌倉?)
Naniwaya Co. 浪華屋 (Kanda, Tokyo 
Nisshinsha (Tokyo 
S.N. Banshiudo 
Taisho Hato Brand 大正鳩ブランド (Wakayama 
Tōdai-ji 東大寺 (Nara 奈良)
Personal Site of Peter Romaskiewicz 