打印

作者

Pedro Luengo

来源

JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY,Vol.49,Issue4,P.

语言

英文

关键字

作者单位

摘要

Abstract Chinese quarters developed significantly during the eighteenth century along the coasts of East and Southeast Asia, exhibiting a common urban milieu in cities such as Manila, Batavia, Hoi An, and Nagasaki. Sharing similarities, they can be found both in states ruled by Asians and by Europeans, allowing for a comparison. This paper aims to prove that urban and architectural approaches of Chinese enclaves in these ports were similar in the eighteenth century and clearly referenced historic water towns of southern China. To do this, historical plans and textual sources of the aforementioned four overseas cities will be used. These results aim to be valuable as an historical basis for studies on acculturation processes in contemporary Chinese quarters. Chinese quarters were developed in different port cities in Southeast Asia starting in the sixteenth century. Both Asian and European powers had to deal with these enclaves, simultaneously as commercial opportunities as well as cultural or military threats. The dynamism of the merchant networks between China and these “overseas” communities, widely studied in the last years,1 should be understood as a method of transnational cultural solution-sharing, which is a much less-addressed issue. This cultural dialogue among Asian communities and between Western and Eastern traditions can be better understood from the history of architecture and urban planning. As communities floating around the Sea of China, they maintained some features of architectural self-awareness that have not been addressed until now. Unfortunately, previous scholars’ attempts have focused merely on national or local phenomenon, without giving the attention this cultural heritage deserved within a framework of comparative urban history. As a response to this issue, this paper aims to identify those Chinese models used by overseas Chinese communities both in terms of architecture and urban planning. To achieve this, it compares the Chinese quarters of four East and Southeast Asian global cities during the eighteenth century—Manila, Batavia, Hoi An, and Nagasaki—with the historic water towns in Zhejiang (China) such as Wuzhen 乌镇, Nanxun南浔镇, or Tongli 同里, among others, along with the traditional architecture of Fujian and Guangdong provinces.2 Other Southeast Asian Chinese settlements, such as Malacca, Penang, or Singapore, have been rejected as models for various reasons. Malacca built its Campon China at the beginning of the seventeenth century, but it was swallowed up by the city’s urban development in subsequent decades, making any specific analysis difficult. Penang was founded in 1786 and most of its shophouses were built during the following centuries, being dated to around the Raffle Ordinances (1822).3 Singapore is probably a result of eighteenth-century experiments in Southeast Asian ports, because its Chinese quarters, Telok Ayer, Kreta Ayer, and Bukit Pasoh, were probably developed from the 1830s onward. Thus, the selection here is based on those quarters that are the largest and best documented in the eighteenth century in the region. The chronological framework has been chosen for several reasons. Although these quarters developed earlier, no graphical information and very few architectural descriptions are preserved on their building characteristics. In those cases where data are available, it will be included. Furthermore, most significant projects by European governments to provide urban spaces for Chinese communities were developed in the eighteenth century. Finally, the nineteenth century exhibits other characteristics, due to the historical changes of maritime China and the development of new building techniques and urban patterns in Europe.4 One of these results is the clear expansion of the shophouses model in a wider variety of Chinese quarters, including now Batavia, Penang, Singapore, and many others. In an attempt to avoid any type of Eurocentrism, two Asian examples and two European examples have been selected, considered within the long tradition of coexistence. Manila (Philippines) might be considered the oldest Chinese quarter in the region, being created at the same time as the foundation of the city in 1571, and later moved and enlarged at different locations. The Dutch capital of Indonesia, Batavia (present-day Jakarta), also had a challenging relationship with Chinese immigrants. A specific quarter is recognized from at least the eighteenth century onward, the so-called Glodok, Guǒduókè 裹踱刻, although other settlements have been identified around the capital active in the early eighteenth century. Faifo, also known as Hoi An (Vietnam), developed a Chinese settlement prior to the seventeenth century, according to the descriptions of Cristoforo Borri.5 Despite this, their still-existing houses probably date to a more recent period. Finally, the Japanese case of Nagasaki will be included, even though it is outside Southeast Asia, primarily because of its architectural and urban similarities with the other three. Known as Tojin-yashiki 唐人屋敷, it is described as early as 1689 and can be studied thanks to its eighteenth-century depictions. As can be seen, the seventeenth century plays a key role in the development of these settlements, but it was during the following century when the most ambitious and challenging attempts were planned. From the comparison between the selected cities, several questions are likely to be answered. First, which architectonic patterns did these settlements share? For instance, religious spaces for the Chinese community can be found in any of them. Civil architecture for the Chinese community, most clearly found in Hoi An, has been also a contributing aspect in this research in all four cities selected. Second, which sort of urban planning was chosen for these enclaves? Public space has a profound meaning in the Chinese world, as the recent analysis on alleyway houses of Shanghai has pointed out, but it has not been studied from this perspective in other Southeast Asian ports. Chinese Urban Models Overseas Architectonic and urban traditions in maritime China were varied during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties.6 On one hand, the mouth of the Yangtze River had some of the empire’s most important cities, including Hangzhou and Suzhou, and was considered the “centre of cultural production and luxury consumption.”7 In contrast to northern China, water towns dedicated to commerce were rather common in this region.8 Suzhou was greatly developed and included private gardens and public structures. Smaller towns, dedicated mainly to commerce, maintained the simpler organizations of canals and streets. Nanxun is a good starting point, because its canals defined the commercial spaces that somehow confined houses. Tongli presents a more intricate web of canals but was also a town with limited architecture. As some scholars have shown, all these historic towns were characterized by long rows of two-story houses facing a canal on one side and a narrow street on the other (Figure 1).9 The houses’ first level was usually devoted to commercial activities and included an unbroken portico to both sides, while the second level was used as domestic space. Few elements were used to compartmentalize these lines of houses: staggered roof decorations and different geometrical patterns of jalousies on wood balconies. These rows of houses followed the path of the canal, creating complex structures distinct from the grid shape of the Roman tradition. In contrast to the shophouse pattern of the future, these buildings had only one module, without a rear courtyard or secondary structure. Last, these towns rarely had open plazas in the European style, instead using the canal corridors as public spaces. Figure 1. Xu Yang, The Qianlong Emperor’s Southern Inspection Tour, Scroll Six: Entering Suzhou along the Grand Canal (Metropolitan Museum of New York, 1770), 1988.350a-d. These patterns, which will be later connected with other Asian ports, were not homogeneous on the other Chinese coasts. The Fujian region generally resisted South China’s architectural evolution due to its geographical context. Vernacular buildings known as the Fujian Tulou 福建土楼 housed entire families in large circular or square structures of several stories.10 More related to rural areas, these edifices translated the requirements of Chinese commerce and private life into a completely different structure. Being, as Fujianese were, one of the most significant groups of merchants, spreading throughout Japan, the Philippines, modern-day Vietnam, and present-day Indonesia, their solutions reached all these regions.11 After demonstrating the particularities of Zhejiang and Fujian provinces, Guangdong architecture also must be included, due to the important number of Chinese merchants from this region. Previous studies have categorized this architecture as lingnan 嶺南建築 including some typologies and features such as the “House with wok ears” Wok yi uk 鑊耳屋, making reference to its external decoration; the “Oyster shell house,” Houhok uk 蠔殼屋, built with a wall made of oysters; or a variation of the shophouse called the Tong lau 唐樓, a result of overseas Chinese experiences to be addressed below. The Wok yi uk refers to a row of houses, the intermediary walls of which are decorated with a protruding vertical end, something that can be found in other Chinese ports. At least five types of decorations have been identified (gold: 金, wood: 木, water: 水, fire: 火, earth: 土) with “gold” being the most common both in continental China and its overseas enclaves. In addition to their specific meanings, it is evident that the people of Guangdong found these decorations to be a significant part of their houses. It is obvious that Chinese housing had different elements which were distinct from European ones and should be sought in overseas settlements of this period to identify acculturation models of self-awareness and adaptation. A Tale of Four Cities: Between Segregation and Inclusion The arrival of the Western powers to Southeast Asia as well as the results of the Ming dynasty’s fall provide new sources on how social life was organized within the urban layout of these new settlements. In the last ten years, many scholars have attempted to shed light on the cultural coexistence of different traditions, but not much has been written on urban organization or architectonic consequences.12 To address this perspective, it was necessary to develop a deeper knowledge on the Chinese communities in these foreign ports, a work broadly carried out in recent years. From this basis, the connection between them as a result of the Chinese communities that there existed must be examined.13 Within this framework, it is possible to compare the Chinese sections in different ports and their possible connections. The Chinese presence in Southeast Asian ports pre-dated European settlements in the region. Nevertheless, during the final decades of the sixteenth century and the initial decades of the seventeenth, Europeans became meaningful parts of these ports. The Western arrival allowed for new forms of urban coexistence with a remarkable impact on other Asian ports. This phenomenon can be found in four ports in the region: Manila, Batavia, Hoi An, and Nagasaki. Manila The oldest attempt to create a Chinese quarter among the ports examined here was the one in Manila.14 Likely this city had the first Chinese enclave in the region and the most conflictive relationship with its population. The number of Chinese merchants increased in the late-sixteenth century because of the policies of Fujian emperor Longing 隆慶 (1567-1572). The arrival of the American gold on the Galleon garnered the attention of merchants from southern China, who also noticed the Spanish interest in silk and other Chinese goods. Massacres of Chinese in the Philippines were common during the seventeenth century, with noteworthy examples occurring in 1603, 1639, 1662, and 1668.15 Nonetheless, fifty ships were allowed to leave Fujian to the “east and west oceans” dongxiyang 西东洋, that is, Malacca, Manila, and Johor.16 Likely many more were sent to these ports, Manila being one of the preferable destinations, highlighting the connection between this region and the Spanish port, more so than in other cases, such as Batavia or Hoi An. While Fujian’s exiles traveled to Manila, Guangzhou monopolized contact with Japan through Tojin-yashiki (modern-day Nagasaki). These regional preferences will be crucial to understand Chinese architecture in those ports better. When the Spaniards designed the new city of Manila in 1571, the Chinese community must have been very large. In contrast to Spain’s traditional approach to the inclusion of locals within its cities, the Chinese were collected together into a quarter next to the walled city of Intramuros in 1581. In the Chinese quarter’s initial period, it was situated on the city’s east side. Here, the river mouth creates a space similar to a square island, which was chosen for the Chinese community. According to the city’s first depictions, the Chinese quarter’s houses were located on the perimeter, leaving the center open. On January 30, 1583, these first structures, made with wood and nipa, burned. Shortly thereafter, the neighborhood was called Parian, a Spanish term adopted from the Tagalog word pariyan meaning “to go,” which was later used in other Spanish cities. At this time, it was relocated on the same side of the river, albeit more to the north. The new location appointed by Governor Diego Ronquillo was previously a swamp. Here, architectural form was maintained, but the allotted space was much larger. Around 600 Chinese lived in this second Parian, operating some 150 shops.17 Even with the establishment of this new quarter, the Chinese presence across the Pasig River, outside of the Parian, was common. This second Parian probably disappeared during the general fire of 1584, but it definitively disappeared by the time of the 1587 fire. On this occasion, it was rebuilt with wood and tiles, although the entire quarter was once again relocated between 1593 and 1594. Binondo was the new location, but one year later, after yet another fire, it was relocated back to its initial location. Between 1596 and 1639, the Parian experienced fires and encountered criticism, but it remained in the same location and even began growing. The proximity to the wall, always problematic, necessitated that the houses were not built in stone. Preserved plans and descriptions do not inform us about the construction of houses of worship or assembly halls in the Parian, not even in the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, the Chinese community maintained their own organizations, which must have taken place in these spaces. Regarding taxes, the Chinese community was organized under the Caja de la Comunidad de Sangleyes (Treasury of the Sangley Community), lately expanded to the Caja de la Comunidad de Tondo (Treasury of the Tondo Community). Its foundation can be dated to 1625, when the leaders of every Chinese guild were called to attend a meeting at the Church of Santos Reyes, at this time the Chinese house of worship.18 General assemblies for the entire population also took place in the church’s front square during the seventeenth century.19 Along the same line, courts and later prisons were developed in the Parian installations, although nothing is known about their locations or their architectural characteristics.20 In the following centuries, these organizations may have remained active, but nothing is recorded about their meetings, though it is possible that churches and squares maintained their functions as meeting places. None of these structures were common in Chinese water towns, but the Chinese community around Manila molded them to their needs. In this early period, historical sources also note that the quarter was organized according to regional groupings. For example, it is known that merchants from Anhui lived across the estuary, although not much is known about similar cases in other Chinese settlements of the time.21 In 1636, when the governor again became interested in moving the quarter, in this case to Binondo and Baybay, this Parian burned down. Governor Corcuera wanted to copy the model he had seen with the Jews in Rome (Italy).22 The municipal architect Pedro de Vera designed a stone wall around the quarter, which was built between 1641 and 1642. Inside, the plots were sold to the Chinese owners of the old quarter, and it was used until 1645. The Spanish city’s inhabitants never accepted this solution because the Chinese were far from the walls, yet close to the sea. Thus, this position could have threatened the walled city. The description of these different attempts exhibits some prominent features. First, it seems clear that the perimeter of the first quarter was full of shops, which were also used as houses. In the middle of the square was a big lake connected with the river by a canal. A small island with the courthouse was located at the center of the lake, showing that some administrative buildings were included.23 Later, this simple structure evolved into a typical Chinese square pattern. The quarter was organized into nine plots, more than likely leaving the central one open, by 1606.24 Much later, in 1678, it reached twenty-four (probably twenty-five following the same pattern) leaving open the thirteenth and the eighteenth. The organization was clearly linked to traditional Chinese urban design, although the features of water towns were not as evident. Likely, these first years of the seventeenth century provided a different proposal compared with the later, and better documented, ones. Probably during the late-seventeenth century and mainly during the eighteenth century, the enclosed space given to the Chinese Parian was encroached upon by the urbanization of adjoining land, namely, the towns of Tondo, Binondo, and Quiapo (Figures 2 and 3). Comparing the shape of its plots with those of Intramuros, it is evident that the Parian’s are longer and are usually connected through a network of canals. This pattern is rather distinct from the Spanish or American tradition, yet close to the aforementioned Zhejiang examples. Unfortunately, no textual information on houses is preserved from this time, although eighteenth-century engravings led us to think that roof decoration or wall ornamentation were similar to those of the Philippine bahay-na-bato (Figure 4). Most of these houses were built with wood, represented in yellow in Figure 2; while very few were made in stone, represented in red. Half a century later (Figure 3), the proportions were similar, although the population had grown. Figure 2. Gregorio Clavero, Plano de la plaza y contornos de Manila (Manila: AGI, MP-Filipinas, 1795), 188. Figure 3. Ildefonso de Aragón, Plano de la Plaza de Manila y sus Contornos (Manila: AGI, MP-Filipinas, 1814), 133. Figure 4. Francisco Brambila, Vista del Río de Manila desde un arco del Puente (1789-1794, Museo deAmérica), 02301. The tensions between the Chinese enclave and the Spanish city persisted throughout the initial decades of the eighteenth century. In 1755, non-Christian sangleys were expelled from the city by edict, and one year later, the seventeenth-century Parian burned down once again. At the same time, the governor began the construction of a new edifice, in this occasion designed by a Spanish architect, Lucas de Jesus María, and built by a Chinese one, Antonio Mazo (Figure 5), with most of the Chinese theoretically out of the city.25 The model was a hybrid structure, between a Spanish octagonal square, like in Tarazona or Aguilar de la Frontera, and a Fujian Tulou 福建土楼. Figure 5. Lucas de Jesús María, Plano . . . de la Real Alcaicería de San Fernando . . . para la habitación y estancia delos sangleyes infieles, que de China vienen al anual comercio (AGI, MP-Filipinas), 176. The description of the Alcaicería, as it was known by the Spaniards, revealed two significant linguistic loans. The Chinese included two terms to describe their houses around Manila: lancape and pantin. The first appears in later Philippine dictionaries as a synonym of “bamboo bed,” and thus can be associated with càipu 菜圃, which means either “vegetable garden” or “vegetal bed” in Chinese. Pantin’s translation is more complicated because it seems that the word has not survived in the archipelago. The second syllable might refer to ting, meaning “living room,” while the first might be páo, which translates to “kitchen,” although it has not been found as the compound noun páoting 庖庁. In spite of these innovations, this building was likewise soon burned down. In 1783, a new project was initiated, this time inside the walled city, still known as Intramuros. Built by the private initiative with the support of Governor Basco y Vargas, it was designed as an updated Western quarter for the Chinese community (Figure 6).26 A church, a public fountain, and modern water supply were included in the project, structures which can be understood both in the European Enlightenment tradition and through Chinese requirements. Even so, the houses followed the characteristics of the existent Chinese tradition, not too distant from Zhejiang houses, which can be found today in the shophouses of Singapore, usually dating back to the nineteenth century.27 The sections of other Southeast Asian shophouses stress the important parts of these buildings for the Chinese users. The entire structure is divided into two different modules, one facing the street known as qianwu 前屋, with a portico, 軒下, and one at the rear houwu 後屋, with a courtyard at the middle, 中庭. The house’s portico connected with others, creating a five-foot way which has been usually considered a Chinese remnant of the qilou 騎樓 that can be found in nineteenth-century architecture in Guangdong. The interior organization of the house maintains the shop at street level, while residential spaces are on the second, and the kitchen is in the rear, exactly in the same manner described in the Manila example, but later in time. Even so, the urban area was organized along large central roadways wherein the smaller streets began, following the pattern found in Shanghai alleyway houses, one of its architectural results.28 In conclusion, it can be said that the diffusion of the shophouse model must begin at least during the middle of the eighteenth century, having its first documented examples in Manila. Figure 6. Plano, perfil y vista de dos tiendas de las que deben construirse en la Alcaicería de Mabolo (AGI, MP-Filipinas), 227. In addition to houses, religious architecture was also included in the plan, although the Spanish missionaries focused their attention on Catholic buildings, namely, the Tondo, Binondo, and Quiapo churches, rather than on other places of worship that likely existed.29 The Chinese community integrated these Catholic edifices into their customs, being a place for burials or spaces for the community’s spiritual needs even as Chinese architectural features here have not been found in them.30 One of the most important devotions in these churches was that to the Virgin of the Rosary, called “La Naval.” Although no source has yet supported this connection, it is probable that this devotion corresponds to the Chinese Matsu, also enshrined in other Southeast Asian ports such as Tianhou, Thiên Hậu, or Masu. From all this, it can be said that the Chinese community was rarely included within the Spanish walled city in Manila. Most of the time, if not all, the quarter was walled off and remained culturally active and architecturally close to Chinese references, mainly from Zhejiang and Fujian rather than from Guangdong. Within the Chinese enclave, the buildings, the urban plan, and even the festivities and religious buildings were not heavily controlled by the Spanish authorities. Batavia The Chinese presence in Batavia dates back to the city’s Dutch foundation in 1619.31 A noteworthy increase in the Chinese population occurred there between 1680 and 1740, when it reached 50 percent of the colony’s entire non-enslaved population.32 From the beginning, the Chinese were considered as a different group, led by the Kapitan China, later including lieutenants and secretaries. In spite of this differentiation, the Chinese population lived inside the walled city from the start. In addition to its presence here, the Chinese community also extended into the city’s outskirts, as historical descriptions show: a writer who published an account of this place near 50 years ago, makes the number of houses at that time 4760, viz. 1242 Dutch houses, and 1200 Chinese houses, within the walls; and 1066 Dutch houses, and 1240 Chinese houses, outside the walls, with 12 houses for the vending of arrack.33 The Chinese presence inside the walls is a noteworthy decision. As a result, they built places of worship, hospitals, and the Kapitan’s residence. Not much information is known on the characteristics of these buildings, apart from the depictions in some plans, watercolors, and a few engravings that show that the main gate followed the style of a Chinese temple, without adaptation for the European city. Much clearer are the urban and housing designs. A plan by De Fraaf dated to the end of the seventeenth century shows the location of the Chinese stalls (kraampjens des Chineesen) on the city’s northwest side (Figure 7). These groups of buildings were relocated in the eighteenth century to outside the wall, as Jan Brandes shows (Figure 8). Both portrayals, different from other more general contemporary representations, show a similar proposal compared with the long rows of houses, connected by canals, although more details would be required to establish a more profound connection with Zhejiang’s urban plan. Not much information is preserved about the ornamentation of these houses. The depiction of Mohr Observatory in 1765, probably located in Glodok, includes a Chinese altar, and the view of a roof which corresponds with aforementioned ones.34 At this same location, the current Vihara Dharma Bhakti temple, known in Chinese as 金德院, was already built, being dedicated to Guanyin starting in 1650. Another example is Gedung Candra Naya, the residence of Chinese kapitan in the eighteenth century, which is still preserved and includes these decorative elements. Finally, in the early twentieth century, Chinese houses in Batavia maintained the organization of the shophouse and the decorative patterns of Guangdong’s houses (Figures 9 and 10), distinct from the Dutch features that were included in the representations of the 1740 Batavia massacre. Much more intriguing is a more recent representation of this region by Gerlach (Figure 11), wherein the Chinese stalls are complemented with a wide network of canals and orthogonal islands, which could be understood as wooden buildings, according to the representational standards of the time. This area would be flooded at high tide, if other plans are accurate, and thus perhaps represents a network of stilt houses. In any case, this part of Batavia must have only existed for a short time because no other representation includes it. Figure 7. Isaac de Fraaff, Plattegrondt van de gobouwen op de Equipage-Werf tot Batavia (Ca. 1695), Nationaal Archief, VEL1227. Figure 8. Jan Brandes, Plattegrond van Batavia met een Duitstalige legend (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 1779-1785), NG-19857-3-140. Figure 9. Groet uit Batavia, Chineesche kamp Kali Besaar (Leiden University Libraries, KITLV Collection, 1910), 1400494, CC BY-NC 3.0. Figure 10. De Chinese wijk, gezien vanaf de watertoren te Medan (Trompenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute, 1918-1919), TM, Zie Standplaats Album. Figure 11. Johannes Gerlach, Plattegrond van de Stad en Casteel Batavia (Nationaal Archief, ca. 1788), VEL1190. In addition to these stalls, the 1740 Chinese uprising began in the city’s southern section, as it is seen in the map of the revolt.35 Probably, it was there, and not as much inside the walls or at the northwest corner, where the Chinese community had a much greater expansion. In fact, written sources also pointed out this possibility: The suburbs of Batavia, or, as it is generally called, the Chinese town from being chiefly inhabited by those people, lie on the south and west sides of the ditch that surrounds the city wall, and are scattered about the country for several miles. The houses are, in general, of wood, and have no pretensions to elegance or beauty; though their warehouses are fitted up with a certain degree of glare and gaudiness.36 The Chinese quarter in the southern part of the city should be the most durable settlement, and the urban and architectural features are clearer, even if they were built in wood. The zone is detailed as a complex network of canals outside of the walls (Figure 12). Very few streets are included, while water canals shape long islands that probably hosted long rows of houses, in the style of Zhejiang. Figure 12. P. J. Tency, Situatieplan van Batavia (Nationaal Archief, Ca. 1797), VEL1192, B: ChieneeseCampong. The Chinese presence in southern Batavia allows us to have a new perspective on the city’s fortification system. The walled city was protected by a four-bastioned citadel controlling the sea. The naval threat was obviously the most dangerous at that time. Throughout the countryside, a network of small forts and watchtowers defended the city from a terrestrial or amphibious attack. In case of an uprising, their effectiveness would have been minimal. In this scheme, the bastion facing the south side makes little sense. Only a profound fear of the possibility of a Chinese attack can explain its construction. It was prepared to defend Westerners against an attack from the Chinese, using the structures of the quarter as bastions. On the contrary, the Chinese organized a very different uprising, entering the city along several flanks without much resistance. Comparing Manila and Batavia demonstrates that some architectural characteristics are repeated, while others are not, mainly those related to provincial particularities. Urban space, and its connection with canals, is probably not only a Dutch custom but also a Chinese one and was evident in Manila. Religious spaces were provided for the Chinese, although in clearly Buddhist structures, including the aforementioned Vihara Dharma Bhakti or Vihara Bahtera Bhakti temple. Last, shophouses were accepted at least in the nineteenth century, as in the Philippine case. Along with all these similarities, Manila underlined its connections with Fujian, while Batavia seemed to host a broader Guangdong population. Furthermore, the Spanish example was usually walled, while the Dutch city seems to be more open. Hoi An It was not merely European powers that ruled lands inhabited by Chinese communities in Southeast Asia at this time. For instance, the concentration of Chinese was remarkable in Siam, Ayutthaya, and Bangkok, especially in Thonburi (Figure 13). Their presence increased after the 1644 fall of the Ming dynasty because a good number of loyalists fled to Hoi An, creating a special status for themselves known as the Minh Hương. The growing presence of this Chinese population, many of them merchants, forced the king of Cochinchina to found a new city where the Japanese and the Chinese communities could live according to their customs and could develop commercial ties with native Cochinese. This new city was originally named Faifo but is currently known as Hoi An.37 One of the descriptions of this port was made in the diary of Christoforo Borri in 1618, wherein he related, “one would think it is two juxtaposed cities; a Chinese city and a Japanese city.”38 Inside both sections, the original ethnic customs were followed. In fact, according to other passages of Italian chroniclers, the Chinese maintained not only their law and traditions but also their sartorial customs. Figure 13. Vue d’Optique representant un Lac et Village de la Cochinchine (Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Estampes et photographie), LI-72 (8)-FOL. Despite the lack of historical visual sources for Hoi An, the eighteenth-century remains have been widely studied archeologically. Trần Phú Street today can be considered the central part of the Chinese quarter, due to the number of religious and social structures there installed. Regarding social edifices, assembly halls or huiguan 会馆 were common, being organized by Chinese regions—Fujian (still preserved as Phúc Kiến Hội Quán), Guangdong, Chaoshan, and Hainan—as well as a general one, today DươngThương Hội Quán.39 All of them seem to have been active in the eighteenth century, although it seems difficult that their current appearance is original.40 In addition to these assembly halls, other community houses must also have been common in the eighteenth century, even as little is known about their appearances. Religious buildings of that time are still preserved, such as Quan Công Temple, dedicated to the namesake Han dynasty general, which has been dated in 1653, the same year of a nearby temple, Quan Âm Tự, a devotion closer to the aforementioned Matzu or Guanyin.41 Two more examples are known: Quảng Yên Tự is described from at least the 1670s while Kim Sơn, also the Fujianese assembly hall, might have been erected as early as 1697.42 Houses preserved in modern-day Hoi An have been usually dated in the nineteenth century according to the aforementioned shophouses model. In contrast to this approach, this paper shows that the model was used at least in Manila during the second half of the eighteenth century, with it possible that the Manila houses are older. Furthermore, Saigon grew significantly from 1788 on, in contrast with the decrease in Hoi An’s importance as international entrepot and Chinese settlement.43 It is known that Hoi An was almost entirely destroyed in 1775 as a result of the conflict between the Trịnh army and the Tay Sơn rebels, but gradually recovered at the end of the century, although not reaching its previous demographic importance in the nineteenth century.44 Thus, it is unlikely that most of its houses extant today were built later, during this depression. Another possibility is that shophouses, a result of Zhejiang’s historic water towns, diffused throughout the Sea of China ports during the eighteenth century, emphasizing some regional features, and reached Hoi An much sooner. During the nineteenth century, after the decline and destruction, many of these houses would have been redecorated or reconstructed, while maintaining the original plot scheme and general pattern. This would explain why Trần Phú Street is closer to the Chinese features described in Manila and Batavia, such as the organization with along a single street with short and narrow alleyways that were only perpendicular to the canal, the gable decorations in the Guangdong style, or the shophouse organization, rather than other streets closer to the canal. Finally, in addition to this general perspective, the traditional visual source to explain housing in Hoi An used to be the Sea Map by Chaya Shinrokuro, studied by Chihara.45 Her proposal on the Japanese and local characteristics of the depicted buildings seems plausible, while the Chinese features are not found. As the author also states, the portrayal probably focuses on the Japanese side of the city, disregarding the Chinese streets, which probably kept the aforementioned idiosyncrasies. If this subtle reinterpretation of Hoi An’s Chinese buildings and urban planning is accepted, elements shared between the three analyzed ports are more evident. The proposal by the Chinese communities is homogenic, which should place little responsibility at the feet of local authorities. At the same time, defining a Chinese overseas model for the eighteenth-century Southeast Asian context, including few regional particularities already pointed out, shows a self-aware taste that could be compared with other contemporary phenomenon. Finally, Chinese building techniques have already been found in all three settlements. The use of oysters in walls was common in Guangdong and, with a different display, was also applied in Macau, Manila, and Batavia. Plaster was contrived in Southeast Asia by mixing burnt oyster with sand and straw, and was known as Chinam, Chunam, or chunambo.46 At the same time, Chinese artisans were behind the expansion of other techniques in the region, such as shell windows, as some studies have recently pointed out.47 Nagasaki While Southeast Asian examples were the most common at that time, Chinese communities also extended their networks to Japan, and specifically to Nagasaki, which can be considered the first Japanese city to create specific quarters for foreigners: Dejima 出島 for the Dutch and Tojin-yashiki 唐人屋敷 for the Chinese. While the European presence has been widely addressed in recent years,48 unfortunately, not much work has been done trying to connect the Chinese quarter with other ports in the region.49 It seems that in 1688, the first year of Genroku 元禄, the Chinese quarter was established. After a large fire that destroyed half of its warehouses, a new island was used to house the quarter ten years later under the name Shijizo 新地蔵所. In the late-seventeenth century, the Japanese state’s main objective was controlling commercial contacts between Japan and foreign merchants. The quarter was built with public funds, being paid back in the next five years by the tenants, a similar scheme that was later attempted in Manila twice.50 According to some portrayals of the town (Figure 13), the quarter was a quadrangular island, connected with the rest of the city by one or two bridges. The ground’s features required a preexisting terrace organization. At least four levels were created, connected by small staircases. The Japanese fortified the island, which included seven guardhouses. This system, although very basic, was very effective. The quarter had only two entrances, which were easy to control. Naval support would only reach the foreigners on the island with difficulty during any uprising. The conquest of the entire island by the Chinese would have made little sense. Thus, the Japanese organized this space carefully, taking into consideration many possibilities (Figure 14). Figure 14. Nagasaki Karakan map. In addition, four temples were built in the town: the Temple of the Great Virtue, the Shrine of the Prince of Heaven, the Shrine for the Guardian Spirit of the Country, and the Shrine of Kouan-in (Awalokies-chouara).51 These four buildings may correspond with some of the oldest religious spaces of the quarter: the Dojin-do 土神堂, the Tenko-do 天后堂, the Kannon-do 観音堂, and the Daitoku-ji 大徳寺. Although all of them can be seen today, the current structures are recent reconstructions of the original buildings. In addition to these structures, two more temples were built outside the quarter before its design: the Kofukuji 興富寺 in 1620 and the Sofukuji 崇福寺 in 1635. Apart from these, it can be seen that most of the Chinese houses were two-story and were organized in long rows, although this organization is less clear by the beginning of the nineteenth century. They were built using wood and tiles, including a big solarium in the second floor, different when compared with the Southeast Asian examples. Conclusion The first conclusion is that the architectural patterns of the Chinese communities in different ports, both under Asian and Western rule, were similar in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. As has been shown, all these ruling powers allowed Chinese communities to design their own spaces. Western innovations and tastes were not taken into consideration by the expatriate Chinese population. The governors of these ports, both Asian and European, allowed the Chinese to organize their own settlements, even taking into account the aforementioned violent conflicts between these communities. Although much more should be studied on the urban planning of these quarters, it seems clear that the Chinese did not have a single developmental model in such instances. Despite the long urban tradition in the continent, other local options arose at various occasions. This diversity can be easily explained considering that the Chinese presence in the ports was not part of a previously unified imperial expansion, as was Spanish and Portuguese expansion, but instead came about through the initiatives of merchant groups. These merchants’ origins, some from Fujian, others from Guangzhou, affected final decisions in these cases. The urban organization corresponded to a historical moment in the very early stages. On the contrary, the architecture is much more inconsistent. Thus, the information on housing is noteworthy. According to the sources used, the Chinese maintained their way of building in the four examples, both in houses and places of worship. In fact, the houses that can be found in Hoi An are not very different from those planned for the Chinese community in Manila during the eighteenth century. The descriptions of the Batavian residential edifices seem to be similar, and the Nagasaki examples are not drastically different. Downstairs, the goods were stored and sold. The shops were situated in the front of the house, while many houses had a little courtyard at the rear, while the family lived upstairs. As can be seen in many descriptions, very few rooms, sometimes only one, were enough for numerous families. This area was illuminated through the large windows to the street and the courtyard. In the case of Nagasaki, and maybe in other ones less known, a solarium was located on the upper floor. Also in these depictions, verandas were included in these houses. They have not been found in the descriptions of other ports, but they are part of some later houses connected with the local population. Perhaps the solution of flown balconies with or without paper windows was common among the Chinese merchants, and from their influence, it was diffused through European ports in Southeast Asia. These results here aim to provide a historical background for studies on acculturation processes in contemporary Chinese quarters. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the number of Chinese urban quarters in Asia, America, and Europe increased immensely, creating a still-significant Chinese overseas culture. Although their architecture has not been typically addressed as a key point of their cultural development, these conclusions demonstrate how Chinese communities kept their housing and spatial tradition, maintaining some regional features and accepting local contributions. Finally, much has been written about the Chinese tendency or European preference to racial isolation in these situations, while this study demonstrates that the solution from local governments was similar whether it be Spanish, Dutch, Vietnamese, and Japanese, even when their previous actions with foreigners were different. At least in these historical examples, it can be said that the Chinese community preferred to preserve a unique space for their own customs.