The lines of crosses look familiar. I'm out of HK at the moment, so don't have access to my Mapping Hong Kong book, but in the appendix at the back I think there is a tourist map with walks marked on it by crosses. Is this another version of that same map?
David is correct. The map above is very similar to, and obviously based on, the following map which appears at Page 234 of "Mapping Hong Kong".
1890s Map of Hong Kong Island, by The British Library
Explanatory notes in "Mapping HK" tell us it was produced as a guide to the best walks on Hong Kong Island and the tip of Kowloon. Accompanying text describes 12 walks and is dated August 1896, so I'll call it the 1896 map.
The map at the head of this string includes a number of post-1896 developments, so is obviously the later of the two maps. I'll call it the "new" map, but when was it produced?
Reclamations
The most obvious differences between the two maps are the reclamations, the biggest of which is in-front of Central and Western. The 1896 map marked its boundary with a dotted line, as construction was underway at that time, but the new map uses a solid line, indicating it was completed when the new map was drawn. This reclamation took years, but was finally finished in 1903 (1903 PWD Report).
The other major reclamation seen in the new map, but not the 1896 edition, is at the southern end of the Kowloon Peninsula. This was "practically completed" in 1905 (1905 PWD Report) with roads built upon it the following year. The Kowloon-Canton Railway is notably absent from the reclamation, suggesting it may have been drawn before the 1916 completion of the KCR's Kowloon Terminus (KCR (British Section) Annual Report for 1916).
The new map also shows smaller reclamations at the Tai Koo and Naval Dockyards not seen on the 1896 version. The former was finished in 1908, by which time the latter was "to a large extent in working order" (1908 PWD Report).
A major reclamation not shown on the new map is that off Wanchai carried out between 1922 and 1929, so the new map should pre-date the mid-1920's.
Roads
The new map shows Jubilee, now Victoria, Road running around the coast below Mount Davis and on to Aberdeen. It was completed in 1903 (1903 PWD Report).
In Kowloon the new map shows a road running west-to-east across the new reclamation from in-front of the Marine Police HQ. It's Salisbury Road. At its western end, also new since 1896, is a pier labeled "Ferry Wharf", that should be the Star Ferry which opened at that location on 1st April 1906 (1906 PWD Report). Robinson, now Nathan, Road was extended southwards to intersect with Salisbury Road in 1906, but the new map shows them as still separate. This may mean that the new map was drawn before the extension or the extension was overlooked when the map was drawn. On balance, considering the numerous inaccuracies noted later, the latter reason seems more likely.
Strangely, although completed in 1904 (1904 PWD Report), well before the new map was drawn, Harlech Road is not marked on the new map despite its obvious interest to the hill-walkers for whom the map was designed.
Buildings
Names of a number of buildings are given on both maps, but those named only in the new map are;
- Blake Pier. Completed in 1900 (1900 PWD Report).
- King Edward Hotel. Opened in October 1902 (HK Telegraph, 4th October 1902).
Surprisingly, a number of major buildings completed in the late 1890's and very early 1900's, after the 1896 map but before the new map, and widely regarded as the pride of the City, are not named on the new map. Neither Hong Club (2nd Generation, completed 1897), Butterfield & Swire's Office (1897), New Oriental Building (1898), HK Telegraph Office (1898 or 9), Queen's Building (1899), Prince's Building (1904), nor Mountain Lodge (1902) are labeled on the new map. Even the HK Tramway, which commenced service in 1905 and could have taken walkers from the City to the start/finish of one of the walks in Shau Kei Wan, doesn't get a mention.
Reservoirs
Bearing in mind that the new map was specifically compiled as a guide to country walks, even more surprising than failing to mention significant new buildings, is its inaccurate depiction of reservoirs. Although it includes Pokfulam (1870's) and Ty Tam (now Tai Tam Upper, 1888) Reservoirs, it omits Wong Nei Chung (1899) and Ty Tam Byewash and Intermediate Reservoirs (1904). Inclusion of these dramatic and picturesque landmarks would surely have been of great interest to the hill-walker, so why omit them?
Even more difficult to explain is the fact that the small reservoir of the Tai Shing Paper Manufacturing Mill above Aberdeen (completed in the 1890's and expanded to become the Aberdeen Lower Reservoir in 1932) is shown on the 1896 map, but not the new map. Instead of the Reservoir, the new map shows a stream on its site. Up until noticing this I'd assumed the author of the new map had basically copied the 1896 map and added a few recent developments, but if that was so the Tai Shing Reservoir would be on the new map. Of course, it may have been omitted by mistake, but then I'd expect a blank space to occupy its site, not a stream. Could the new map have been copied from an earlier version of the 1896 map?
Labeling
Having noticed one mistake on the new map, numerous others then become apparent. Quarry Bay, Saiwan Bay and Wongnai Chung Road in the 1896 map are misspelled as Ruarry Bay, Saiw Bay and Wongcho Chaung Road in the new map. Even the name of the City, "VICTORIA", printed in capitals in the 1896 map is wrongly written as "VIOTORIA" in the new edition. Some of these errors are so fundamental as to suggest that whoever compiled the new map may not have been personally familiar with Hong Kong, the Romanization of its place names, or perhaps even the English language.
On close examination it's also apparent that the hand-written labeling on the new map, although similar, is in a far less precise hand than in 1896.
Height Differences
Another difference between the two maps are the given heights for some of the peaks on Hong Kong Island. Whereas, Victoria Peak is marked as 1825 feet in the 1896 version, it's shown as 1770 in the new map. Similarly, the height of Mount Kellett changes from 1660 to 1650 feet, Mount Parker from 1833 to 1733 feet, and Mount Davis from 883 to 677 feet. Two other maps dating from the same era show the same height changes. The 1888 map at Plate 2.4 of "Mapping HK" gives the same heights as the 1896 map, whilst the 1905-9 map at Plate 2-8 gives the same heights as the new map. This must mean that at least one other source, in addition to the 1896 map, was referred to in the production of the new map. Perhaps the differences reflect the results of a topographical survey carried out between the dates of the two maps.
Conclusions
The new map must have been compiled around 1906-8 at the earliest, but estimating the latest date by which it could have been produced is more difficult. As it seems to show reclamations reasonably accurately, but doesn't include the huge 1922-9 Wanchai Reclamation, I think we can safely assume that the new map pre-dates it. With Ty Tam Tuk Reservoir missing, the new map should logically pre-date the year of its completion, 1917, but as noted above, this argument can't be relied upon one hundred percent due to the new maps omission of earlier reservoirs. Hong Kong University opened in 1912 and is also missing from the new map. Does that mean the map was produced before 1912 or is it just another illogical omission?
On the basis that reclamations were the only new features captured accurately in the new map, it can be dated from between 1906-8 and the mid-1920's.
Whereas the new map gives no hint as to the identity of its author, the 1896 map proclaims itself to have been "compiled and drawn by R.C. Hurley", a well-known photographer, cartographer and tourist guide (see Robert Crisp HURLEY at www.gwulo.com/node/22682 ). Due to their strong similarities, we can say with confidence that, not only was the new map based on Hurley's, it was deliberately drawn and labeled in the same style so as to imitate it. However, whereas Hurley worked with great attention to detail in 1896, the handwriting on the new map is less professional and there are just too many errors and illogical omissions for him to have been responsible for the new version.
So if the new map wasn't Hurley's work, whose was it? I've no idea, but here's a theory. "HK Mapping" mentions that his 1896 map was so well received that it was reprinted in the HK Almanac in 1899. What if that version also proved to be popular? So popular that, by 1906-8 of thereafter, someone else decided they'd try to cash in on its success by producing their own updated, but not so professional, version? Just a theory. Any alternative suggestions and comments are welcome.
Thank you for your comments, this is all very interesting. I am inclined to believe this is, as you suggest, a later and partially updated imitation of the older map. The spelling mistakes struck me as odd too, and so I assumed this was put together by a non-English speaker, as you point out mixing "Q" for "R" and "O" for "C", which do look similar. I'm sure I'd make many more errors if I was reproducing a map in an unfamiliar script. This newer map also seems to be of lower quality; it's monochromatic and you can see creases where the printing press has not inked continuous lines. Also, the author obviously decided to omit their name from the print. Perhaps this map is then the product of a local entrepreneur seeing an opportunity.
Still, I do like this map – understanding a little more about it makes it even more interesting, thank you.
I also have a few other random HK maps, if you were interested in seeing they’re up here https://flic.kr/s/aHsjCXZQP1
Comments
Pre-1918
Again, no sign of the Tai Tam Tuk reservoir.
Regards, David
I assume that structure at
I assume that structure at the end of the Kowloon peninsular isn't the Kowloon Station. As far as I'm aware this would put it <1916?
pre-1910
there's no sign of the track either (I'm assuming the dotted line on the right is marking the beach front?) which would put it pre-1910.
The lines of crosses look
The lines of crosses look familiar. I'm out of HK at the moment, so don't have access to my Mapping Hong Kong book, but in the appendix at the back I think there is a tourist map with walks marked on it by crosses. Is this another version of that same map?
Regards, David
New Map
David is correct. The map above is very similar to, and obviously based on, the following map which appears at Page 234 of "Mapping Hong Kong".
Explanatory notes in "Mapping HK" tell us it was produced as a guide to the best walks on Hong Kong Island and the tip of Kowloon. Accompanying text describes 12 walks and is dated August 1896, so I'll call it the 1896 map.
The map at the head of this string includes a number of post-1896 developments, so is obviously the later of the two maps. I'll call it the "new" map, but when was it produced?
Reclamations
The most obvious differences between the two maps are the reclamations, the biggest of which is in-front of Central and Western. The 1896 map marked its boundary with a dotted line, as construction was underway at that time, but the new map uses a solid line, indicating it was completed when the new map was drawn. This reclamation took years, but was finally finished in 1903 (1903 PWD Report).
The other major reclamation seen in the new map, but not the 1896 edition, is at the southern end of the Kowloon Peninsula. This was "practically completed" in 1905 (1905 PWD Report) with roads built upon it the following year. The Kowloon-Canton Railway is notably absent from the reclamation, suggesting it may have been drawn before the 1916 completion of the KCR's Kowloon Terminus (KCR (British Section) Annual Report for 1916).
The new map also shows smaller reclamations at the Tai Koo and Naval Dockyards not seen on the 1896 version. The former was finished in 1908, by which time the latter was "to a large extent in working order" (1908 PWD Report).
A major reclamation not shown on the new map is that off Wanchai carried out between 1922 and 1929, so the new map should pre-date the mid-1920's.
Roads
The new map shows Jubilee, now Victoria, Road running around the coast below Mount Davis and on to Aberdeen. It was completed in 1903 (1903 PWD Report).
In Kowloon the new map shows a road running west-to-east across the new reclamation from in-front of the Marine Police HQ. It's Salisbury Road. At its western end, also new since 1896, is a pier labeled "Ferry Wharf", that should be the Star Ferry which opened at that location on 1st April 1906 (1906 PWD Report). Robinson, now Nathan, Road was extended southwards to intersect with Salisbury Road in 1906, but the new map shows them as still separate. This may mean that the new map was drawn before the extension or the extension was overlooked when the map was drawn. On balance, considering the numerous inaccuracies noted later, the latter reason seems more likely.
Strangely, although completed in 1904 (1904 PWD Report), well before the new map was drawn, Harlech Road is not marked on the new map despite its obvious interest to the hill-walkers for whom the map was designed.
Buildings
Names of a number of buildings are given on both maps, but those named only in the new map are;
- Blake Pier. Completed in 1900 (1900 PWD Report).
- King Edward Hotel. Opened in October 1902 (HK Telegraph, 4th October 1902).
Surprisingly, a number of major buildings completed in the late 1890's and very early 1900's, after the 1896 map but before the new map, and widely regarded as the pride of the City, are not named on the new map. Neither Hong Club (2nd Generation, completed 1897), Butterfield & Swire's Office (1897), New Oriental Building (1898), HK Telegraph Office (1898 or 9), Queen's Building (1899), Prince's Building (1904), nor Mountain Lodge (1902) are labeled on the new map. Even the HK Tramway, which commenced service in 1905 and could have taken walkers from the City to the start/finish of one of the walks in Shau Kei Wan, doesn't get a mention.
Reservoirs
Bearing in mind that the new map was specifically compiled as a guide to country walks, even more surprising than failing to mention significant new buildings, is its inaccurate depiction of reservoirs. Although it includes Pokfulam (1870's) and Ty Tam (now Tai Tam Upper, 1888) Reservoirs, it omits Wong Nei Chung (1899) and Ty Tam Byewash and Intermediate Reservoirs (1904). Inclusion of these dramatic and picturesque landmarks would surely have been of great interest to the hill-walker, so why omit them?
Even more difficult to explain is the fact that the small reservoir of the Tai Shing Paper Manufacturing Mill above Aberdeen (completed in the 1890's and expanded to become the Aberdeen Lower Reservoir in 1932) is shown on the 1896 map, but not the new map. Instead of the Reservoir, the new map shows a stream on its site. Up until noticing this I'd assumed the author of the new map had basically copied the 1896 map and added a few recent developments, but if that was so the Tai Shing Reservoir would be on the new map. Of course, it may have been omitted by mistake, but then I'd expect a blank space to occupy its site, not a stream. Could the new map have been copied from an earlier version of the 1896 map?
Labeling
Having noticed one mistake on the new map, numerous others then become apparent. Quarry Bay, Saiwan Bay and Wongnai Chung Road in the 1896 map are misspelled as Ruarry Bay, Saiw Bay and Wongcho Chaung Road in the new map. Even the name of the City, "VICTORIA", printed in capitals in the 1896 map is wrongly written as "VIOTORIA" in the new edition. Some of these errors are so fundamental as to suggest that whoever compiled the new map may not have been personally familiar with Hong Kong, the Romanization of its place names, or perhaps even the English language.
On close examination it's also apparent that the hand-written labeling on the new map, although similar, is in a far less precise hand than in 1896.
Height Differences
Another difference between the two maps are the given heights for some of the peaks on Hong Kong Island. Whereas, Victoria Peak is marked as 1825 feet in the 1896 version, it's shown as 1770 in the new map. Similarly, the height of Mount Kellett changes from 1660 to 1650 feet, Mount Parker from 1833 to 1733 feet, and Mount Davis from 883 to 677 feet. Two other maps dating from the same era show the same height changes. The 1888 map at Plate 2.4 of "Mapping HK" gives the same heights as the 1896 map, whilst the 1905-9 map at Plate 2-8 gives the same heights as the new map. This must mean that at least one other source, in addition to the 1896 map, was referred to in the production of the new map. Perhaps the differences reflect the results of a topographical survey carried out between the dates of the two maps.
Conclusions
The new map must have been compiled around 1906-8 at the earliest, but estimating the latest date by which it could have been produced is more difficult. As it seems to show reclamations reasonably accurately, but doesn't include the huge 1922-9 Wanchai Reclamation, I think we can safely assume that the new map pre-dates it. With Ty Tam Tuk Reservoir missing, the new map should logically pre-date the year of its completion, 1917, but as noted above, this argument can't be relied upon one hundred percent due to the new maps omission of earlier reservoirs. Hong Kong University opened in 1912 and is also missing from the new map. Does that mean the map was produced before 1912 or is it just another illogical omission?
On the basis that reclamations were the only new features captured accurately in the new map, it can be dated from between 1906-8 and the mid-1920's.
Whereas the new map gives no hint as to the identity of its author, the 1896 map proclaims itself to have been "compiled and drawn by R.C. Hurley", a well-known photographer, cartographer and tourist guide (see Robert Crisp HURLEY at www.gwulo.com/node/22682 ). Due to their strong similarities, we can say with confidence that, not only was the new map based on Hurley's, it was deliberately drawn and labeled in the same style so as to imitate it. However, whereas Hurley worked with great attention to detail in 1896, the handwriting on the new map is less professional and there are just too many errors and illogical omissions for him to have been responsible for the new version.
So if the new map wasn't Hurley's work, whose was it? I've no idea, but here's a theory. "HK Mapping" mentions that his 1896 map was so well received that it was reprinted in the HK Almanac in 1899. What if that version also proved to be popular? So popular that, by 1906-8 of thereafter, someone else decided they'd try to cash in on its success by producing their own updated, but not so professional, version? Just a theory. Any alternative suggestions and comments are welcome.
Thank you for your comments,
Thank you for your comments, this is all very interesting. I am inclined to believe this is, as you suggest, a later and partially updated imitation of the older map. The spelling mistakes struck me as odd too, and so I assumed this was put together by a non-English speaker, as you point out mixing "Q" for "R" and "O" for "C", which do look similar. I'm sure I'd make many more errors if I was reproducing a map in an unfamiliar script. This newer map also seems to be of lower quality; it's monochromatic and you can see creases where the printing press has not inked continuous lines. Also, the author obviously decided to omit their name from the print. Perhaps this map is then the product of a local entrepreneur seeing an opportunity.
Still, I do like this map – understanding a little more about it makes it even more interesting, thank you.
I also have a few other random HK maps, if you were interested in seeing they’re up here https://flic.kr/s/aHsjCXZQP1