Huangjia Ancient Well

The Huangjia Ancient Well is a Song dynasty well in what is now Huangjia Village, Hefeng Town, Lishui District. The Nanjing municipal list of protected sites records it as Song, at Huangjia Village, Hefeng Town.

The batch is now confirmed against the municipal gazette notice. Ning Zheng Fa [2012] No. 67 of 20 March 2012 published the fourth batch of 117 municipal protected sites, together with 3 extension projects. The Huangjia Ancient Well appears as item 11 in the "ancient sites" section, with the period given as Song and the address recorded as "Huangjia Village, Hefeng Town, Lishui County". It is the only Lishui entry in that section of the fourth batch.

Curb and inscriptions

According to a 2025 report in Jinling Baijia (a media column, not a heritage authority document), the well carries a drum-shaped stone curb on which three lines of text are cut:

"大宋政和元年造" "江夏郡" "顺治捌年孟冬月重修"

The report infers from the first line that the well was dug in the first year of the Zhenghe era of the Northern Song (1111). Two points must be kept apart. First, "the inscription shows the well was dug in 1111" is the reporter's inference, not a departmental dating; this library holds no rubbing, transcription or archaeological report for the inscription. Second, this entry's era follows the Song recorded in the protected sites list and is not rewritten to the year 1111; the recorded period and a specific year of digging are two different levels, presented side by side rather than merged.

The third line, recording repair in the eighth month of the eighth year of the Shunzhi era, is the most recent repair date visible on the curb, that is the tenth lunar month of 1651. It is the only date in this entry's material that the well itself attests and that converts directly into a precise year. Its evidential level differs from the Song of the protected sites list: the former is a repair year inscribed on the object, the latter a period of origin recorded by survey. Neither substitutes for the other, and the former must not be used to establish the latter.

The meaning of the second line, "江夏郡", is not explained by the report; this entry quotes the three lines as they stand and draws no inference connecting them to a commandery of origin or to the founder's native place.

Shaft and present condition

The same report records that the shaft is brick-lined; that the inner edge of the curb carries many rope marks worn by long use drawing water; and that the water is clear, still used by local residents for washing at the time of reporting. The rope marks are traces of use and belong to present-day observation; the quality and use of the water are likewise the state of affairs in 2025. Neither supports any dating conclusion about the Song period.

The report also records that a Huang Ancestral Hall has been rebuilt in the village, its outer wall painted with stories of surnamed Huang figures, and that the Huangjia Ancient Well lies beside the wall of the new hall. It should be noted that this is a modern reconstruction, not a protected site; it is not the same place as the municipally protected "Daixi Village Huang Ancestral Hall" in Gaochun, nor as the five Lishui ancestral halls in the third batch (Honglan Rui, Shiqiu Wei, Hefeng Yang, Hefeng Zhu, Jingqiao Liu). This entry likewise does not use the reconstructed hall to infer migration history or the origin of the Huangjia settlement.

Not recorded in the old gazetteer

Volume 5 of the Kangxi Lishui County Gazetteer, under the section "springs and wells", registers the wells of the county one by one; nineteen were read on this occasion: Dan, Shangfang, the county office well, Chengnan (Four-Eye), Guan (Three-Eye), Songjia, Jiunü, Wujia, Hanhu, Mingshou, Shuangyan, Jin, Ximen, Liquan, Daiqiao, Shuang, Mengjia, and Chenjia. Among them is no Huangjia well, and no mention of Huangjia Village at all.

This is negative evidence, but it supports only a limited conclusion: the name Huangjia well does not appear in the "wells" section of the Kangxi gazetteer of 1677. Its limits must be stated as well, and must not be overextended. The gazetteer's selection was itself selective — the Jin, Ximen, Liquan and Daiqiao wells are all entered with an attached legend or function (the sharing-out lore, sweet and unfailing in drought, fit for brewing vinegar, credited with healing) — so a village well without a name or a story of its own may simply not have been entered. Absence of record is not absence of existence, and it cannot be used to question the Song recorded in the protected sites list. This entry stops at that one statement; it does not assert that the well "first appears in such-and-such gazetteer" or "was dug in the late Qing".

Open questions

• The reading of the curb inscription has not been professionally verified. This library holds no rubbing or transcription; the text above follows a media report, and the character forms are unchecked.
• The depth and diameter of the well, the number of brick courses in the lining, the brick specification, and the height and diameter of the curb: no source records these, so this entry states nothing on them.
• The exact year of digging: the list records Song, the report infers 1111; the two are of different levels, and 1111 has not been recognised by a heritage authority.
• The meaning of the "江夏郡" line, and what exactly is cut there, is unverified.
• The dates of cleaning and repair between the Song and the Shunzhi repair of 1651 are not recorded by any source.
• Neither the fourth batch notice nor the municipal list gives the extent, boundary or protective measures; the report notes no stele or protective structure.
• The relation between the well and the Huangjia settlement — whether it served as the village's common source, and whether the village or the well is the older name — is unverified. The hall described in the report is a modern rebuild and cannot serve as evidence.