2026-10-06

The Red Incense Burner The archaeology of a Hong Kong shore name — 紅香爐 / Hung Heung Lau, 1747–1985

 Research article

The Red Incense Burner

The archaeology of a Hong Kong shore name — 紅香爐 / Hung Heung Lau, 1747–1985

Histsyn · Independent research
Compiled 5 October 2026 · Endnotes and bibliography after The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed.

Abstract

Before it was Causeway Bay, and long before it was Tin Hau, the shore east of Victoria was called 紅香爐 — the Red Incense Burner. This paper reconstructs the name’s layers from the record. A village: the first British census (15 May 1841) lists “Hung-heong-loo, Hamlet. 50” (scan-verified), between the Hong Kong fishing village and Tung Lo Wan; the 1843 CO 129/010 enclosure copies it as “Hang-heong-loo, Hamlet. 30”. A hill: Hung Heung Lo Shan, “the area’s name before 1840” (Siu Kwok-kin). A Qing military post: the 紅香爐汛, one of the 大鵬營’s nine 汛 — with three conflicting founding dates in the modern sources (1725, 1810, 嘉慶時期) that this paper records but cannot adjudicate, the gazetteer itself lying outside the corpus. A temple: the Tin Hau temple’s own rebuild inscription (the 1868 works, 《香港碑銘彙編》 entry 53) opens “茲紅香爐天后宮，創建 有年” — the temple calls itself the 紅香爐天后宮 — and its donor list is the whole harbour’s trading network (“闔港水陸商 民”), reaching 台灣府林本源 and the Chaozhou houses. The name then ran through the British official record for forty-seven years — the 1845 Directory vocabulary (“紅香爐 Hung-hiáng Lú”), the 1869 Gazette, the 1880/81 census, the 1887/88 Blue Books — before leaving the record. The floating-burner legend is documented as a legend: the 1868 inscription does not tell it, and the earliest located retellings are modern. The etymology “紅香爐港，簡稱香港” is rejected as unproven. The name’s afterlife: the 1928 Chinese Temples Ordinance exemption (the temple still managed by the Dai family), the 1951 pirate film 《聚義紅香爐》, the 1982 monument declaration — and in 1985 the MTR station named Tin Hau after the temple: the burner’s last transformation, from a name into a district.

Keywords: 紅香爐; Hung Heung Lau; Causeway Bay; Tin Hau Temple; 1841 census; 紅香爐汛; 大鵬營; 新安縣志; place names; inscriptions; 銅鑼灣; Tin Hau station

1. Introduction: one name, five referents

Every old Hong Kong name is an archaeology: dig at one spot and the layers come up in order. 紅香爐 — the Red Incense Burner — is the old name of the shore east of Victoria that the modern city calls Causeway Bay and Tin Hau. The name had at least five referents, and the modern accounts merge them at will: a village of fifty people in the first British census; the hill behind the temple; a Qing military post (汛) of the 大鵬營; the temple that still keeps the name; and — in one popular etymology — a harbour name from which “Hong Kong” itself is said to derive. This paper separates the layers, states what the record supports for each, and marks where the record stops.1

The method is corpus-first: the hkintexts full-text index of Hong Kong texts, queried read-only, with every passage quoted read in its whole document; the 1841 census table’s column pairing checked against the page scan; the modern scholarship (Siu Kwok-kin’s JHKBRAS articles, the standard histories) read as secondary witnesses; the Wikipedia and Wikisource APIs used for the modern accounts and for what the gazetteer-transcription projects have and have not yet reached.2

2. The Qing layer: the 汛 and its contested date

The Qing military presence on the island is not in doubt. The 嘉慶《新安 縣志》卷四 山水略 entry for 赤柱山 — quoted in the Chinese press in 1969 — reads 「赤柱山在縣南岸海心…有兵防守」: soldiers were stationed on the island’s south side.3 The 大鵬營’s organisation carried nine 汛, and the lists survive in the modern sources: 九龍汛、大嶼山汛、鹽田汛、上峒塘汛、關湖塘汛、下沙塘汛、老大鵬汛、紅香 爐汛及東涌口汛.45 A Qing 兵制 text quoted in the 1985 press gives the post’s shape: 「紅香爐[汛]：在本營西，水程二百 九十里，下至大灣山砲台…千總一員，外委…該汛兵丁換配米艇巡洋」 — a station with a 千總 and an 外委, its men rotated through the rice-boats on coastal patrol.6

The founding date, however, is contested three ways, and the corpus cannot adjudicate. Siu Kwok-kin states 1810, citing 嘉慶《新安縣志》卷十二 (the 海防 chapter)7; 《香港史新編》 gives 嘉慶時期 for the island’s two 汛 (紅香爐 and 赤柱), citing 霍啟昌8; and a military-history column in the 1989 Chinese press gives 雍正三年 (1725) — an eighty-five-year spread between witnesses.9 The gazetteer itself — 卷二（都里）， 卷四（山水略）， 卷十二（海防）— is outside the corpus, and on Wikisource only the 卷首 and 卷之一 are transcribed.1011 《百年商業》’s reading of the gazetteer map adds the cautionary note: the map’s 紅香爐山 「恐怕是修 志[的]人誤把紅香爐汛當做另在一個島上所致」 — even the mapmaker may have misplaced the name.12

3. The temple and its own inscription

The earliest document in which the name names itself is stone. The Tin Hau temple’s rebuild inscription — recorded in the 《香港碑銘彙編》 (entry 53) — opens: 「茲紅香爐天后宮，創建有年。自道光甲辰重 修以來…歲月遷流既久，風霜剝蝕殊深…是以用集同儕，共興盛舉…叨蒙闔港水 陸商民人等，揮金相助，聿觀厥成…爰爲勒碑刻銘，以彰不朽云爾。」 The temple — whose bell is dated 1747, built by the Hakka Dai 戴氏 of 蒲崗, at the time called the 鹽船灣紅香爐廟 — calls itself the 紅香爐天后 宮, and the inscription’s frame (「自道光甲辰重修以來」) places it in the 1868 rebuild campaign.1314

The donor list is the name’s social reach: 福茂隆 (70 dollars), 番衣行聯聚堂 (40), 恒豐行, 合興行, 永祥順 (60 each), 台灣府林本源 (30), the Chaozhou houses 潮州廣源號, 潮州公和號, 海邑良興號, 澄邑公成 號, 澄邑永裕興 (20 each), and dozens more — 「闔港水陸商民」, the merchants of the whole harbour, land and water, with the network reaching Taiwan and Chaozhou. Whatever else 紅香爐 was, the record shows what it meant: a name used by the people who moved through the harbour.15

4. The British record, 1841–1888

The British inherited the name and used it for forty-seven years. The first census (published in the Hongkong Gazette of 15 May 1841, reprinted in the 1841 Directory and Chronicle, p. 303) lists the island’s places with population and description: Chek-chu “the capital, a large town” (2,000); Heongkong 香港 “A large fishing village” (200); Kwun-tai-loo 裙帶路 (50); Soo-koon-poo 掃管莆 (10); “Hung- heong-loo, Hamlet. 50”; Sai-wan (30) — the villages totalling 4,350, and with the Bazaar (800), the boats (2,000) and the Kowloon labourers (300) the table prints an “Actual present population” of 7,450.16 The 1843 copy enclosed to the Colonial Office (CO 129/010) shifts the small figures — “Hang-heong-loo, Hamlet. 30” — and the two versions are recorded here as variants, the scan-verified 1841 original being cited for the village’s population.17

The name then moves through the administrative record like a fixed star. 1845: the Directory’s Chinese vocabulary teaches the newcomer item 9, 「紅香爐 Hung-hiáng Lú」, between 燈籠洲 and 鷄閘 門.18 1869: the Gazette’s Notification No. 86 counts “Hung-heung-lò” in the Shaukiwan registration list.19 1880–81: the census returns’ footnote “ Shau-ki-wán includes San T’sün, Hung-Heung-lò, Tung Lo Wán…”, enclosed also to the Colonial Office.20 1887–88: the Blue Books’ agricultural statistics list “Victoria, (including) Wongnaich’ung, San Chün, & Hung Heung Lo” — the name’s last official appearances; after the 1880s it leaves the record.21

On the name’s location and identification, Siu Kwok-kin is explicit: “Before 1840, the area was known as Hung Heung Lo Shan” — the hill behind the temple; and in his 1996 village list, Hung-heong-loo = Causeway Bay 銅鑼灣.2223 The shore also carried the name 燈籠洲 (Tang Lung Chau, “Lantern Isle”) — the temple’s three burners are inscribed 「燈籠洲天后廟」 — two names for one shore, both surviving in the modern street pattern (Tin Hau Temple Road; the Tang Lung Chau Market in Jardine’s Bazaar).24

5. The legend, and the etymology that fails

The legend is the best-known part and the least documented: a red incense burner floated ashore, was read as Tin Hau’s call, and gave the place its name. It is retold in English in 198925, in the standard histories2627, and in the Chinese press of the 1960s.28 But the 1868 inscription — the temple’s own voice — does not tell the story: it names the temple 紅香爐天后宮 and thanks the harbour’s merchants, with no burner adrift.29 The earliest located retellings are modern; the legend is recorded in this paper as a legend, with no document behind it.

The popular etymology built on the legend — 「香港又名紅香爐港…將該 處稱‘紅香爐港’，簡稱‘香港’」 — appears in 《香港史新 編》 as tradition30, and the English Wikipedia still calls Hung Heung Lo “one of the pre-colonial names for Hong Kong Island”.31 The record does not support it. 《百年商業》’s verdict stands: 「這只可說是紅香爐[的]來歷，還不能說明香港名源」 — the burner explains itself, not the colony’s name.32 《香港歷史考察 之旅》 even preserves a rival variant: the bay was also called 「銅香 爐」 — the copper burner — a pun on 銅鑼灣’s gong.33 The 1985 press survey reached the same order of names: 紅香爐, 裙帶路, 香港村 — and the coda that from the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) “香港” replaced the others as the island’s unified name.3435

6. The afterlife: 1928–1985

After the name left the official record it stayed in the city’s memory, and the temple kept it alive. 1928: the Chinese Temples Ordinance brought every temple in the colony under the Chinese Temples Committee — with the 紅香爐天后廟 the one exemption, still managed by the Dai family to this day.36 1951: the name reached the cinema — the pirate picture 《聚義紅香爐》, a 張保仔 story, advertised in the Chinese press.37 The 1960s–80s Chinese press retold the legend and surveyed the old names.383940 1982: the temple was declared a monument.41 1985: the MTR opened, and the station beside the temple was named Tin Hau — the area has been called 天后 since. The burner’s last transformation: the name that once named the shore now names a district, through the goddess rather than the bronze.4243

7. Conclusion

The archaeology of 紅香爐 resolves into layers that can be dated and layers that cannot. The temple’s own stone (1868) is the firmest: the name was the temple’s name, and its reach was the harbour’s trading network. The British record (1841–1888) is complete and scan-verified at its head: a village of fifty, then a registered locality for two generations of administrators. The Qing military layer is real — a 汛 with a 千總 and patrol boats — but its founding date cannot be stated: the witnesses disagree by eighty-five years, and the gazetteer that would settle it lies outside this corpus. The legend is a legend, and the etymology built on it fails. The name’s life ended twice: it left the official record in the late 1880s, and it left the map in 1985 — when the station took the goddess’s name, and the burner went back to the temple.44454647

Appendix A: sources and method

The documentary corpus is the hkintexts research index (Elasticsearch cluster hkintexts, index hkintexts_pages for text and hkintexts_image_pages for scans), queried read-only on 5 October 2026; the Wikipedia and Wikisource MediaWiki Action APIs (keyless) supplied the modern accounts and the gazetteer-transcription status. Every passage quoted was read in its whole document; every corpus document id cited was re-fetched and the quoted phrase grepped before citation; the 1841 census table’s column pairing was checked against the page scan. No write was made to the index. Query families:

  • 紅香爐 (traditional characters), whole corpus — 36 hits, by class: the inscription collection (1), the Chinese press (8+), the modern research-publications (6);
  • the romanizations: “Hung-heong-loo” (2 — the 1841 census and the 1996 JHKBRAS); “Hung Heung” (50 — the RAS journal, the Blue Books 1887/88, the 1881 census, the 1869 Gazette, CO 129/193; 1 false positive: a person’s name in a PRO file); “hung-heung” (96, the same classes);
  • 紅香爐 + 汛 — 7 hits (the press columns and the modern books);
  • the image index: “Hung-heong-loo” + the directories-chronicles-image series — 1 hit, the 1841 census page scan;
  • Wikisource full-text 紅香爐 — 930 hits, all the poetic “red incense burner”: a false-positive class, not Hong Kong evidence; intitle:新安縣志 — the work exists, but only 卷首 and 卷之一 are transcribed.

Appendix B: evidence register

Confirmed (two or more independent documents)
ClaimWitnesses
紅香爐 was a village on the north shore, in the British official record 1841–1888the 1841 census (scan-verified); the 1843 CO enclosure; the 1845 Directory vocabulary; the 1869 Gazette; the 1880/81 census returns; the 1887/88 Blue Books
The Tin Hau temple’s own name was 紅香爐天后宮the rebuild inscription (《香港碑銘彙編》 entry 53); Siu Kwok-kin 1989; the temple account (the 1747 bell, the 鹽船灣紅香爐廟 name)
The name’s location = the Causeway Bay / Tin Hau shore (the hill 紅香爐山)Siu Kwok-kin 1989/1996; 《香港歷史考察之旅》
The floating-burner legend EXISTS (as a legend)Siu Kwok-kin 1989; 《香港史新編》; 《百年商業》; the Chinese press 1961/1966
A Qing military 汛 named 紅香爐 existed (the 大鵬營’s nine 汛)Siu Kwok-kin (縣志卷十二); 《香港史新編》 (霍啟昌); 《香港歷史 探究》 note 29; the 1985/1989 press columns (the 兵制 quote; the nine 汛); the Dapeng Fortress account
Conflicts (recorded, not adjudicated)
ItemThe versions
The 汛’s founding date1810 (Siu Kwok-kin, 嘉慶縣志卷 十二) vs 嘉慶時期 (《香港史新編》, 霍啟昌) vs 雍正三年 1725 (《華僑日報》 1989 column) — an 85-year spread; the gazetteer is outside the corpus; no date asserted
The census figure for the village“Hung-heong-loo, Hamlet. 50” (the 1841 original, scan-verified) vs “Hang-heong-loo, Hamlet. 30” (the 1843 CO copy) — the same copy shifts Soo-koon poo (5 vs 10); variants recorded, never averaged
The name’s extentthe documented village/hill/汛 vs “紅香爐港 = the island, abbreviated 香港” (《香港史新編》 p. 35; the English Wikipedia’s “pre-colonial name for Hong Kong Island”) vs 《百年商業》’s dismissal — no Qing document in the corpus calls the island 紅香爐
The 銅香爐 variant「紅香爐」or「銅香爐」 (《香港歷史考察之 旅》) — a second folk etymology punning on 銅鑼灣’s 銅; recorded only there
Failed verification (do not use)
ItemWhy
“紅香爐是香港名稱的來源”no corpus document; 《百年商業》 explicitly rules it insufficient; the 《香港史新編》 version carries the legend as tradition — NOT a finding
“雍正三年（1725）設紅香爐汛”single witness (a 1989 press column), source not stated; contradicts Siu Kwok-kin’s 1810; not usable as a date
The Wikisource 紅香爐 sweep930 hits, all the poetic “red incense burner”; a false-positive class, not Hong Kong evidence
Gaps (bracket, never assert)
ItemWhy
嘉慶《新安縣志》卷二、卷四、卷十二the gazetteer itself; not in the corpus; on Wikisource only 卷首 and 卷之一 are transcribed
《香港史新編》 p. 35 note (85)’s sourcenot located in the corpus pull
The 香港志 article 「從紅香爐到天后站」the link is dead (404, 5 October 2026)
The inscription’s exact 立碑 datethe entry carries the 道光甲辰 (1844) and 同治七年 (1868) references in the text; the 立碑 date itself is not captured in the pulled page; bracketed as the 1868 rebuild inscription
The first documentary attestation of the drift legendthe 1868 inscription does not tell it; the earliest located retellings are modern

Notes

  1. ↑Method note: the documentary corpus interrogated for this paper is the hkintexts research index (Elasticsearch cluster hkintexts, index hkintexts_pages for text and hkintexts_image_pages for scans), queried read-only on 5 October 2026, together with the Wikipedia and Wikisource MediaWiki Action APIs (keyless). The logged queries are itemised in Appendix A. Every passage quoted below was read in its whole document; every corpus document id cited was re-fetched and the quoted phrase grepped before citation. The 1841 census table’s column pairing was checked against the page scan. No write was made to the index.
  2. ↑Method note: the documentary corpus interrogated for this paper is the hkintexts research index (Elasticsearch cluster hkintexts, index hkintexts_pages for text and hkintexts_image_pages for scans), queried read-only on 5 October 2026, together with the Wikipedia and Wikisource MediaWiki Action APIs (keyless). The logged queries are itemised in Appendix A. Every passage quoted below was read in its whole document; every corpus document id cited was re-fetched and the quoted phrase grepped before citation. The 1841 census table’s column pairing was checked against the page scan. No write was made to the index.
  3. ↑《華僑日報》, 13 October 1969, p. 23 — the island’s Qing geography column: the 嘉慶《新安縣志》卷四 山水略 entry quoted “赤柱山在縣南岸海心…有兵防守”; and the 1841 census re-read — 赤柱 first (2,000), a large village (1,200), and “香港…爲一大漁村，有住民二百人”; with the 1960 official Gazetteer of Place Names. https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/2560724 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  4. ↑《香港歷史探究》(2011), p. 5, note 29: “營汛包括有九龍汛、大嶼山汛、鹽田汛、上峒塘汛、關湖塘汛、下沙塘汛、老大鵬汛、紅香爐汛及東涌口汛。” https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/3186268 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  5. ↑Dapeng Fortress, Wikipedia (English) — the Qing 大鵬營 “established nine districts such as Dongyongkou, Shuishitang, Lantau, Red Incense Burner, Yantian…”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dapeng_Fortress (accessed 5 October 2026).
  6. ↑《華僑日報》, 30 September 1985, p. 24 — the name-origin theories column: theory 1 (the pirate 香姑) dismissed citing 許地山 (the legend evolved from the Ming pirate 劉香); theory 2: “因島上紅香爐山所轉稱而得名… 名海港爲紅香爐港… 其後，紅香爐港一名，漸演變爲全島名”; and a Qing 兵制 text quoted: “紅香爐[汛]：在本營西，水程二百九十里，下至大灣山砲台…千總一員，外委[一員]…該汛兵丁換配米艇巡洋。” https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/2747046 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  7. ↑Anthony Siu Kwok-kin 蕭國健, “Tung Lo Wan,” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 29 (1989), pp. 422–425: “Before 1840, the area was known as Hung Heung Lo Shan… Legend said that in olden days, there was a red incense burner floating on to the shore which landed at the site of the Tin Hau Temple… Thus the hill was known as Hung Heung Lo Shan; and in 1810, a guard station (shuen) was posted there” (note 2: 嘉慶《新安縣志》卷十二; note 1: the 縣志卷二 village entries; note 4: the temple’s three burners carry 「燈籠洲天后廟」; the Tang Lung Chau Market in Jardine’s Bazaar). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/212007 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/212008 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/212009 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  8. ↑王賡武（主編）《香港史新編》, p. 3: “根據中外文獻的記載，大概在嘉慶時期開始，清政府已在香港島設有紅香爐和赤柱兩汛，駐兵防守。” (note 26: 霍啟昌，前引書，頁 26–27). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/3186215 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  9. ↑《華僑日報》, 21 July 1989, p. 15 — the 大鵬營 military-history column: “雍正三年…該營轄管塘汛九處：九龍[汛]、大嶼山[汛]、鹽田汛、上[峒]塘汛、[關]湖塘汛、下沙[塘]汛、老大鵬汛、紅香爐汛及東涌口汛” — the earliest of the three conflicting dates for the 汛; single witness, source not stated. https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/2792340 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  10. ↑《新安縣志》(舒懋官) on Wikisource: only 卷首 and 卷之一 are transcribed; the 卷二（都里）、卷四（山水略）、卷十二（海防） entries cited by the modern sources are not yet there — the gazetteer itself remains a gap. https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/新安縣志_(舒懋官) (accessed 5 October 2026).
  11. ↑The 汛’s founding date, three versions: 1810 (Siu Kwok-kin, citing 嘉慶《新安縣志》卷十二); 嘉慶時期 (《香港史新編》, citing 霍啟昌); 雍正三年(1725) (《華僑日報》, 21 July 1989). The gazetteer is not in the corpus; no date is asserted in this paper.
  12. ↑《百年商業》, p. 11 — the Hong Kong name-origin essay: the 嘉慶縣志圖 shows the island’s possible names 赤柱山 and 紅香爐山, “後者恐怕是修志[的]人誤把紅香爐汛當做另在一個島上所致”; the drift legend with “清時在那裏還設了一個紅香爐汎”; and the verdict: “但這只可說是紅香爐[的]來歷，還不能說明香港名源。” https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/3186154 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  13. ↑《香港碑銘彙編》, entry 53 (天后古廟), p. 129 — the rebuild inscription: “茲紅香爐天后宮，創建有年。自道光甲辰重修以來…歲月遷流既久，風霜剝蝕殊深…是以用集同儕，共興盛舉…叨蒙闔港水陸商民人等，揮金相助，聿觀厥成…爰爲勒碑刻銘，以彰不朽云爾。” The donors: 福茂隆 (70)、番衣行聯聚堂 (40)、恒豐行/合興行/永祥順 (60 each)、台灣府林本源 (30)、潮州廣源號/潮州公和號/海邑良興號/澄邑公成號/澄邑永裕興 (20 each). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/1688754 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  14. ↑銅鑼灣天后廟, Wikipedia (Chinese) — the bell dated 1747; the temple built by 戴仕蕃 of the Dai 戴氏 (Hakka from 惠州淡水, first settled at 蒲崗), at the time called “鹽船灣紅香爐廟”; the two founding legends; the 1844 and 1868 rebuilds; the 1928 Chinese Temples Ordinance exemption (the temple still managed by the Dai family). https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/銅鑼灣天后廟 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  15. ↑《香港碑銘彙編》, entry 53 (天后古廟), p. 129 — the rebuild inscription: “茲紅香爐天后宮，創建有年。自道光甲辰重修以來…歲月遷流既久，風霜剝蝕殊深…是以用集同儕，共興盛舉…叨蒙闔港水陸商民人等，揮金相助，聿觀厥成…爰爲勒碑刻銘，以彰不朽云爾。” The donors: 福茂隆 (70)、番衣行聯聚堂 (40)、恒豐行/合興行/永祥順 (60 each)、台灣府林本源 (30)、潮州廣源號/潮州公和號/海邑良興號/澄邑公成號/澄邑永裕興 (20 each). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/1688754 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  16. ↑The island place-list, Hongkong Gazette, 15 May 1841, reprinted in Directory and Chronicle for China 1841, p. 303: “Chek-chu, the capital, a large town. Population 2000; Heongkong, A large fishing village. 200; Kwun-tai-loo, Fishing village. 50; Soo-koon-poo, A hamlet. 10; Hung-heong-loo, Hamlet. 50; Sai-wan, Hamlet. 30”; the villages total 4,350; with “In the Bazaar. 800; In the Boats, 2000; Laborers from Kowlung. 300” the table prints “Actual present population. 7,450”. https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/980761 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  17. ↑The same list as an enclosure, CO 129/010 — Sir Henry Pottinger — 1843, p. 16: “Hang-heong-loo, Hamlet. 30”; “Soo-koon poo, Fishing hamlet. 5” — the 1843 copy’s spellings and small figures differ from the 1841 original; the two versions are recorded as variants, and the scan-verified 1841 original is cited for the village’s population. https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/220421 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  18. ↑Directory and Chronicle for China 1845, “Notices of Hongkong”, the Chinese vocabulary, item 9: “紅香爐 Hung-hiáng Lú” — between 燈籠洲 (item 8) and 鷄閘門 (item 10); the name taught to newcomers alongside 裙帶路 (item 5) and 赤柱 (item 24). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/982094 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  19. ↑The Hongkong Government Gazette, 1869, Government Notification No. 86: “Shaukiwàn includes Hung-heung-lò, Tsat-tsz-mui, Pak-shui-wàn, Ngo-yan-wàn, and Wong-kok-tsui.” https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/1677537 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  20. ↑The census returns: Administrative Report 1880, p. 77; the 1881 Census Returns, p. 4; the same list enclosed in CO 129/193 — Governor Hennessy — 1881, p. 205: “Shau-ki-wán includes San T’sün, Hung-Heung-lò, Tung Lo Wán, Pak Shui Wán, Ts’at-tsze-múi, Shin Tsing Wán, Wong Kok Tsui, and A’ Kung Ngam.” https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/612315 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/1666926 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/308865 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  21. ↑Colonial Blue Books 1887 (p. 214) and 1888 (p. 226), the agricultural statistics: “Victoria, (including) Wongnaich’ung, San Chün, & Hung Heung Lo”. https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/661219 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/661481 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  22. ↑Anthony Siu Kwok-kin 蕭國健, “Tung Lo Wan,” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 29 (1989), pp. 422–425: “Before 1840, the area was known as Hung Heung Lo Shan… Legend said that in olden days, there was a red incense burner floating on to the shore which landed at the site of the Tin Hau Temple… Thus the hill was known as Hung Heung Lo Shan; and in 1810, a guard station (shuen) was posted there” (note 2: 嘉慶《新安縣志》卷十二; note 1: the 縣志卷二 village entries; note 4: the temple’s three burners carry 「燈籠洲天后廟」; the Tang Lung Chau Market in Jardine’s Bazaar). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/212007 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/212008 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/212009 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  23. ↑Anthony Siu Kwok-kin 蕭國健, JHKBRAS 31 (1996), p. 264 — the 1841 villages with identifications: “Chek Chu (Stanley), Heong Kong (Hong Kong Village), Wong Nei Chung, Kung Lam (A Kung Ngam), Shek Lup (Shek O), Shoo-ke-wan (Shau Kei Wan), Ta Shek-ha, Kwan-tai-loo (Victoria City), Soo-Kon-poo (So Kon Po), Hung-heong-loo (Causeway Bay), Sai Wan (Chai Wan), Tai Long, Too-te-wan (To Tei Wan), Tai Tam and Shek-tong-chuy (Sai Ying Pun)”; and the 康熙 evacuation (1661–69) with only 香港 and Wong Nei Chung rebuilt, Pok Fu Lam and So Kon Po founded in the 嘉慶 reign. https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/213912 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  24. ↑Anthony Siu Kwok-kin 蕭國健, “Tung Lo Wan,” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 29 (1989), pp. 422–425: “Before 1840, the area was known as Hung Heung Lo Shan… Legend said that in olden days, there was a red incense burner floating on to the shore which landed at the site of the Tin Hau Temple… Thus the hill was known as Hung Heung Lo Shan; and in 1810, a guard station (shuen) was posted there” (note 2: 嘉慶《新安縣志》卷十二; note 1: the 縣志卷二 village entries; note 4: the temple’s three burners carry 「燈籠洲天后廟」; the Tang Lung Chau Market in Jardine’s Bazaar). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/212007 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/212008 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/212009 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  25. ↑Anthony Siu Kwok-kin 蕭國健, “Tung Lo Wan,” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 29 (1989), pp. 422–425: “Before 1840, the area was known as Hung Heung Lo Shan… Legend said that in olden days, there was a red incense burner floating on to the shore which landed at the site of the Tin Hau Temple… Thus the hill was known as Hung Heung Lo Shan; and in 1810, a guard station (shuen) was posted there” (note 2: 嘉慶《新安縣志》卷十二; note 1: the 縣志卷二 village entries; note 4: the temple’s three burners carry 「燈籠洲天后廟」; the Tang Lung Chau Market in Jardine’s Bazaar). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/212007 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/212008 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/212009 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  26. ↑《香港史新編》, p. 35: “香港又名‘紅香爐港’。傳說很久以前，從海上飄來紅香爐，泊於天后廟前，人以為是天后顯靈，就將島上之山稱‘紅香爐山’，將該處稱‘紅香爐港’，簡稱‘香港’。” (note 85, not located in the corpus pull). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/3186247 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  27. ↑《百年商業》, p. 11 — the Hong Kong name-origin essay: the 嘉慶縣志圖 shows the island’s possible names 赤柱山 and 紅香爐山, “後者恐怕是修志[的]人誤把紅香爐汛當做另在一個島上所致”; the drift legend with “清時在那裏還設了一個紅香爐汎”; and the verdict: “但這只可說是紅香爐[的]來歷，還不能說明香港名源。” https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/3186154 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  28. ↑《華僑日報》 folklore columns: 30 March 1961, p. 26 (the floating burner and the Tin Hau myth), and 17 April 1966, p. 24 (the Tin Hau temples survey, the drift story retold for the Causeway Bay temple). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/2471945 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/2523102 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  29. ↑《香港碑銘彙編》, entry 53 (天后古廟), p. 129 — the rebuild inscription: “茲紅香爐天后宮，創建有年。自道光甲辰重修以來…歲月遷流既久，風霜剝蝕殊深…是以用集同儕，共興盛舉…叨蒙闔港水陸商民人等，揮金相助，聿觀厥成…爰爲勒碑刻銘，以彰不朽云爾。” The donors: 福茂隆 (70)、番衣行聯聚堂 (40)、恒豐行/合興行/永祥順 (60 each)、台灣府林本源 (30)、潮州廣源號/潮州公和號/海邑良興號/澄邑公成號/澄邑永裕興 (20 each). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/1688754 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  30. ↑《香港史新編》, p. 35: “香港又名‘紅香爐港’。傳說很久以前，從海上飄來紅香爐，泊於天后廟前，人以為是天后顯靈，就將島上之山稱‘紅香爐山’，將該處稱‘紅香爐港’，簡稱‘香港’。” (note 85, not located in the corpus pull). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/3186247 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  31. ↑Tin Hau Temple, Causeway Bay, Wikipedia (English) — the legend “gave rise to one of the pre-colonial names for Hong Kong Island, Hung Heung Lo (Red Incense-burner island)”; declared a monument in 1982; the MTR station (1985) and the Tin Hau area named after the temple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Hau_Temple,_Causeway_Bay (accessed 5 October 2026).
  32. ↑《百年商業》, p. 11 — the Hong Kong name-origin essay: the 嘉慶縣志圖 shows the island’s possible names 赤柱山 and 紅香爐山, “後者恐怕是修志[的]人誤把紅香爐汛當做另在一個島上所致”; the drift legend with “清時在那裏還設了一個紅香爐汎”; and the verdict: “但這只可說是紅香爐[的]來歷，還不能說明香港名源。” https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/3186154 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  33. ↑《香港歷史考察之旅：港島區》, p. 17: the temple “早期已有紅色及銅製的香爐，因此當時的銅鑼灣亦有‘紅香爐’或‘銅香爐’的別名。其[後]的地段亦因此廟而定名為天后區。” https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/3186288 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  34. ↑《華僑日報》, 30 September 1985, p. 24 — the name-origin theories column: theory 1 (the pirate 香姑) dismissed citing 許地山 (the legend evolved from the Ming pirate 劉香); theory 2: “因島上紅香爐山所轉稱而得名… 名海港爲紅香爐港… 其後，紅香爐港一名，漸演變爲全島名”; and a Qing 兵制 text quoted: “紅香爐[汛]：在本營西，水程二百九十里，下至大灣山砲台…千總一員，外委[一員]…該汛兵丁換配米艇巡洋。” https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/2747046 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  35. ↑《華僑日報》, 21 November 1985, p. 15 — the 掌故 column: the island’s old names “紅香爐”、“裙帶路”、“香港村”等; and “一八四二年中英南京條約簽字時起，‘香港’就取代其他名稱，而確定為全島的統一名稱了。” https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/2748700 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  36. ↑銅鑼灣天后廟, Wikipedia (Chinese) — the bell dated 1747; the temple built by 戴仕蕃 of the Dai 戴氏 (Hakka from 惠州淡水, first settled at 蒲崗), at the time called “鹽船灣紅香爐廟”; the two founding legends; the 1844 and 1868 rebuilds; the 1928 Chinese Temples Ordinance exemption (the temple still managed by the Dai family). https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/銅鑼灣天后廟 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  37. ↑《華僑日報》, 19 April 1951, p. 4 — the film 《聚義紅香爐》 (a 張保仔 pirate picture; the name as a 1951 movie title). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/2404075 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  38. ↑《華僑日報》 folklore columns: 30 March 1961, p. 26 (the floating burner and the Tin Hau myth), and 17 April 1966, p. 24 (the Tin Hau temples survey, the drift story retold for the Causeway Bay temple). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/2471945 ; https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/2523102 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  39. ↑《華僑日報》, 13 October 1969, p. 23 — the island’s Qing geography column: the 嘉慶《新安縣志》卷四 山水略 entry quoted “赤柱山在縣南岸海心…有兵防守”; and the 1841 census re-read — 赤柱 first (2,000), a large village (1,200), and “香港…爲一大漁村，有住民二百人”; with the 1960 official Gazetteer of Place Names. https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/2560724 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  40. ↑《華僑日報》, 30 September 1985, p. 24 — the name-origin theories column: theory 1 (the pirate 香姑) dismissed citing 許地山 (the legend evolved from the Ming pirate 劉香); theory 2: “因島上紅香爐山所轉稱而得名… 名海港爲紅香爐港… 其後，紅香爐港一名，漸演變爲全島名”; and a Qing 兵制 text quoted: “紅香爐[汛]：在本營西，水程二百九十里，下至大灣山砲台…千總一員，外委[一員]…該汛兵丁換配米艇巡洋。” https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/2747046 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  41. ↑Tin Hau Temple, Causeway Bay, Wikipedia (English) — the legend “gave rise to one of the pre-colonial names for Hong Kong Island, Hung Heung Lo (Red Incense-burner island)”; declared a monument in 1982; the MTR station (1985) and the Tin Hau area named after the temple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Hau_Temple,_Causeway_Bay (accessed 5 October 2026).
  42. ↑Tin Hau Temple, Causeway Bay, Wikipedia (English) — the legend “gave rise to one of the pre-colonial names for Hong Kong Island, Hung Heung Lo (Red Incense-burner island)”; declared a monument in 1982; the MTR station (1985) and the Tin Hau area named after the temple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Hau_Temple,_Causeway_Bay (accessed 5 October 2026).
  43. ↑《香港歷史考察之旅：港島區》, p. 17: the temple “早期已有紅色及銅製的香爐，因此當時的銅鑼灣亦有‘紅香爐’或‘銅香爐’的別名。其[後]的地段亦因此廟而定名為天后區。” https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/3186288 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  44. ↑《香港碑銘彙編》, entry 53 (天后古廟), p. 129 — the rebuild inscription: “茲紅香爐天后宮，創建有年。自道光甲辰重修以來…歲月遷流既久，風霜剝蝕殊深…是以用集同儕，共興盛舉…叨蒙闔港水陸商民人等，揮金相助，聿觀厥成…爰爲勒碑刻銘，以彰不朽云爾。” The donors: 福茂隆 (70)、番衣行聯聚堂 (40)、恒豐行/合興行/永祥順 (60 each)、台灣府林本源 (30)、潮州廣源號/潮州公和號/海邑良興號/澄邑公成號/澄邑永裕興 (20 each). https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/1688754 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  45. ↑The island place-list, Hongkong Gazette, 15 May 1841, reprinted in Directory and Chronicle for China 1841, p. 303: “Chek-chu, the capital, a large town. Population 2000; Heongkong, A large fishing village. 200; Kwun-tai-loo, Fishing village. 50; Soo-koon-poo, A hamlet. 10; Hung-heong-loo, Hamlet. 50; Sai-wan, Hamlet. 30”; the villages total 4,350; with “In the Bazaar. 800; In the Boats, 2000; Laborers from Kowlung. 300” the table prints “Actual present population. 7,450”. https://hkintexts.histsyn.com/page/980761 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  46. ↑The 汛’s founding date, three versions: 1810 (Siu Kwok-kin, citing 嘉慶《新安縣志》卷十二); 嘉慶時期 (《香港史新編》, citing 霍啟昌); 雍正三年(1725) (《華僑日報》, 21 July 1989). The gazetteer is not in the corpus; no date is asserted in this paper.
  47. ↑Tin Hau Temple, Causeway Bay, Wikipedia (English) — the legend “gave rise to one of the pre-colonial names for Hong Kong Island, Hung Heung Lo (Red Incense-burner island)”; declared a monument in 1982; the MTR station (1985) and the Tin Hau area named after the temple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Hau_Temple,_Causeway_Bay (accessed 5 October 2026).

Bibliography

Primary sources

  • The island place-list, Hongkong Gazette, 15 May 1841, reprinted in Directory and Chronicle for China 1841, p. 303 (“Hung-heong-loo, Hamlet. 50”; “Actual present population. 7,450”); the same list as an enclosure, CO 129/010 — Sir Henry Pottinger — 1843, p. 16 (“Hang-heong-loo, Hamlet. 30” — the variant copy). Public viewer links as in the notes, accessed 5 October 2026.
  • Directory and Chronicle for China: 1845 ed., the Chinese vocabulary (“紅香爐 Hung-hiáng Lú”, item 9).
  • The Hongkong Government Gazette, 1869, Government Notification No. 86 (the Shaukiwan list); the census returns, Administrative Report 1880, p. 77, and the 1881 Census Returns, p. 4 (the Shaukiwan footnote), the same list enclosed in CO 129/193, p. 205; the Colonial Blue Books 1887 and 1888 (the Victoria locality list).
  • 《香港碑銘彙編》, entry 53 (天后古廟), p. 129 — the 紅香爐天后宮 rebuild inscription and its donor list (福茂隆, 番衣行聯聚堂, 恒豐行, 合興 行, 永祥順, 台灣府林本源, the Chaozhou houses).
  • 《華僑日報》: 19 April 1951 (the film 《聚義紅香爐》); 30 March 1961 and 17 April 1966 (the legend retold); 13 October 1969 (the 縣志卷四 赤柱山 entry; the census re-read); 30 September 1985 (the name-origin theories; the 兵制 quote); 21 November 1985 (the island’s old names); 21 July 1989 (the 大鵬營 nine 汛).

Secondary sources

  • Anthony Siu Kwok-kin 蕭國健. “Tung Lo Wan.” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 29 (1989), pp. 422–425; and JHKBRAS 31 (1996), p. 264 (the 1841 villages with identifications).
  • 王賡武（主編）《香港史新編》, pp. 3, 35 (the island’s two 汛; the 紅香爐港 tradition). 《百年商業》, p. 11 (the name-origin essay). 《香港極 簡史》, p. 1 (the census rows with Chinese glosses). 《香港歷史探究》 (2011), p. 5, note 29 (the nine 汛). 《香港歷史考察之旅：港島區》, p. 17 (the 銅香爐 variant).
  • 銅鑼灣天后廟 / Tin Hau Temple, Causeway Bay / Dapeng Fortress. Wikipedia (Chinese and English); 《新安縣志》（舒懋官）on Wikisource (the transcription status). All accessed 5 October 2026.
at