繁體中文
嘉慶《新安縣志》卷之二 輿地畧一「都里」按司／都逐村列出全縣村莊（本籍先、客籍附）。掃描本第 61 頁上半葉（版心實測題「新安縣志 卷之二 都里」）係同一份本籍名單嘅另一段，兩半共 36 條村名：右半（讀序先）為積存圍、田心村、逕口村、隔田村、小瀝源、九龍寨、衙前村、蒲岡村、牛眠村、牛池灣、古瑾村、九龍仔、長沙灣、尖沙頭、芒角村、土瓜灣、深水莆、二黃店村；左半為黃泥涌、香港村、薄鳧林、掃管莆、向西村、湖貝村、水貝村、黃貝嶺、上步村、羅湖村、南塘村、向南村、湖南村、西湖村、東鄉村、洲邊村。當中 21 條同今日香港地名對得上，係整份名單最貼近香港嘅一段：沙田 5 條（積存圍即大圍、田心村、逕口村即今徑口、隔田村、小瀝源）、九龍 12 條（九龍寨、衙前村即衙前圍、蒲岡村即蒲崗村、牛眠村、牛池灣、古瑾村、九龍仔、長沙灣、尖沙頭即尖沙咀、芒角村即旺角、土瓜灣、深水莆即深水埗）、香港島 4 條（黃泥涌、香港村、薄鳧林即薄扶林、掃管莆即掃桿埔）；其餘 12 條（向西村、湖貝村、水貝村、黃貝嶺、上步村、羅湖村、南塘村、向南村、湖南村、西湖村、東鄉村、洲邊村）屬今深圳境。呢條係由公共領域掃描本人手核讀出嚟嘅內容事實，同志錄並排對照：志錄記 1819 年官富司所轄村莊本籍 298 條、客籍 194 條，其中約 300 條在今香港境內（並見同一份名單第 62 頁上下兩葉嘅條目）；逐名對得上嘅有「衙前圍」（志錄 1352 年、1723 年條目）、「尖沙頭」（1368 年香埗頭條目）、「積存圍（大圍）同田心圍」（明代沙田核心村落條目）、「古瑾村」（馬頭角趙宋皇族後人條目）、「掃管莆」（清道光《香港等處稅畝總呈》香港島田產條目）、「深水莆」（1870 年九龍巡檢司七都條目）、「香港村」（1857 年九區條目）；「九龍寨」「牛池灣」「土瓜灣」「九龍仔」對得上嘅志錄條目都喺 1819 年之後，屬其後發展，本站照樣標明。注意：全葉只見村名同版心，冇分段標目，所以本站只按緊接嘅「官富司管屬客籍村莊 附」段推斷屬同一司，唔會逐村指派司屬；「今香港／今深圳」係本站編輯對照（同名村落兩地皆有），唔屬縣志原文；「掃管莆」「深水莆」「尖沙頭」「芒角村」「薄鳧林」等一律照掃描本字形抄錄，唔會擅自改成今名。另有兩個村名字形未能高倍確認（疑「薄寮村」「赤磡村」），未入庫，已列入 /coverage 已知缺口。
English
The Jiaqing Xin’an County Gazetteer lists the county’s villages one by one in juan 2, “Villages”, grouped by the office or district that administered them (indigenous villages first, Hakka villages appended). The upper leaf of page 61 of the scan (running head read directly: “Xin’an County Gazetteer, juan 2, Villages”) holds a further stretch of the same indigenous list, carrying 36 village names across its two halves. The right half, read first, gives Jicun Wei, Tianxin Cun, Jingkou Cun, Getian Cun, Xiaoliyuan, Kowloon Wai, Yaqian Cun, Pugang Cun, Niumian Cun, Ngau Chi Wan, Gujin Cun, Kowloon Tsai, Cheung Sha Wan, Tsim Sha Tau, Mong Kok Cun, To Kwa Wan, Sham Shui Po and Erhuangdian Cun; the left half gives Wong Nai Chung, Hong Kong Cun, Pok Fu Lam, So Kwun Po, Xiangxi Cun, Hubei Cun, Shuibei Cun, Huangbeiling, Shangbu Cun, Luohu Cun, Nantang Cun, Xiangnan Cun, Hunan Cun, Xihu Cun, Dongxiang Cun and Zhoubian Cun. Twenty-one of them correspond to places in Hong Kong today, which makes this the stretch of the whole list closest to Hong Kong: five in Sha Tin (Jicun Wei — Tai Wai; Tianxin Cun; Jingkou Cun — today’s Keng Hau; Getian Cun; Xiaoliyuan), twelve in Kowloon (Kowloon Wai; Yaqian Cun — Nga Tsin Wai; Pugang Cun — Po Kong Village; Niumian Cun; Ngau Chi Wan; Gujin Cun; Kowloon Tsai; Cheung Sha Wan; Tsim Sha Tau — Tsim Sha Tsui; Mong Kok Cun — Mong Kok; To Kwa Wan; Sham Shui Po) and four on Hong Kong Island (Wong Nai Chung; Hong Kong Cun; Pok Fu Lam; So Kwun Po — So Kon Po), while the remaining twelve (Xiangxi Cun, Hubei Cun, Shuibei Cun, Huangbeiling, Shangbu Cun, Luohu Cun, Nantang Cun, Xiangnan Cun, Hunan Cun, Xihu Cun, Dongxiang Cun and Zhoubian Cun) stand in what is Shenzhen today. This content fact was read by hand from the public-domain scan and sits alongside the Chronicles archive, which records that in 1819 the Guanfu Office administered 298 indigenous and 194 Hakka villages, about 300 of them on Hong Kong soil today (see also the entry for both leaves of page 62 of the same list); names that pair up one by one are Nga Tsin Wai (Chronicles entries for 1352 and 1723), Tsim Sha Tau (a 1368 entry on Heung Po Tau), Jicun Wei, that is Tai Wai, together with Tianxin Wai (a Ming entry on Sha Tin’s core villages), Gujin Cun (an entry on the Song imperial clan’s descendants at Ma Tau Kok), So Kwun Po (a Daoguang-era entry on the “Hong Kong and Other Places Taxable Fields General Report” for Hong Kong Island), Sham Shui Po (an 1870 entry on the seven du under the Kowloon Inspection Office) and Hong Kong Cun (an 1857 entry on the nine districts), while the Chronicles entries matching Kowloon Wai, Ngau Chi Wan, To Kwa Wan and Kowloon Tsai all postdate 1819 and are therefore flagged as later developments. Note that both leaves carry village names and running heads only, with no section heading of their own, so this site infers the office solely from the appended Guanfu Office Hakka list that follows, and never assigns villages to an office one by one; the “Hong Kong today / Shenzhen today” split is this site’s editorial cross-reference (identical village names exist on both sides) and is not in the gazetteer; and names such as So Kwun Po, Sham Shui Po, Tsim Sha Tau, Mong Kok Cun and Pok Fu Lam are transcribed exactly as the scan prints them, never silently modernised. Two further village names, whose glyphs could not be confirmed at high magnification (apparently Bo Liao Cun and Chi Kan Cun), are not published and are logged among the known gaps on /coverage.
出處：掃描本：《廣州大典》第三十五輯·史部方志類·第六十三冊，嘉慶《新安縣志》卷之二 輿地畧一「都里」本籍村莊段，掃描本第 61 頁上半葉（版心實測題「新安縣志 卷之二 都里」；頁次字形係行草，未高倍確認——按同頁下半葉同第 62 頁上下兩葉（頁次五、六）嘅先後次序，本葉應為三、四之一，待覆核）；Commons sha1 ad357f97…。掃描本冇可用文字層，內容一律人手核讀：見 scripts/ocr-pd-gazetteer-scans.swift。Provenance: Scan: Guangzhou Dadian, series 35 (local gazetteers), volume 63 — the Jiaqing Xin’an County Gazetteer, juan 2, “Radiations of the Territory” part 1, “Villages”, the indigenous-village stretch, upper leaf of page 61 of the scan (running head read directly: “Xin’an County Gazetteer, juan 2, Villages”; the folio glyph is written in a cursive hand and has not been confirmed at high magnification — by the order of the lower leaf of the same page and of both leaves of page 61’s successor page 62 (folios 5 and 6) it should be one of folios 3 and 4, pending re-check); Commons sha1 ad357f97…. The scan has no usable text layer, so its content is read by hand — see scripts/ocr-pd-gazetteer-scans.swift.