TaiwanDNA.com

Origins and Diversity of the Taiwanese People

TaiwanDNA.com Homepage

 

Changhua County

Changhua City (彰化市) is the county seat of Changhua County in Taiwan. At one time an activity area of the Babuza Taiwanese aborigines, it's name derives from the aboriginal word Poasoa.

 

Yunlin County

Huwei (虎尾鎮) is an urban township in Yunlin County (雲林縣), Taiwan. It has a population of about 67,000. Its seventeenth century name was Favorlang.

Gilbertus Happart was a seventeenth-century Dutch missionary to Formosa (now known as Taiwan). He was stationed in the village of Favorlang (modern-day Huwei) and wrote a dictionary of the Babuza language of the inhabitants

BABUZA

Excerpts from Wikipedia.org

The Babuza (貓霧捒族 or 巴布薩族; Favorlang during the Dutch occupation) are a Taiwanese aboriginal people, living primarily in Changhua County and around the western part of Taiwan's Central Basin.

 

Babuza is a Western Plain language (the only other one being Thao) of the Babuza and Taokas, indigenous peoples of Taiwan.

The Babuza language used to be (or is, according to some linguists) one of the Formosan languages, but according to the 2005 version of Ethnologue, this family only contains Papora-Hoanya and Kulon-Pazeh.

Alternate names for this language include: Babusa, Favorlang, Favorlangsch, Jaborlang, and Poavosa.

Dialects

• Poavosa
• Taokas (extinct)

 

 

* 我是「巴布薩族」的原住民

Excerpt: 長久以來，
我對自己為什麼會姓「陣」一直沒有任何懷疑，
反正爸爸姓「陣」，我當然也一樣啊，
總覺得這就是理所當然的事。

前些時候，剛好家族有聚會，
幾位長輩提到台灣好像還有其他同姓氏的，
但不知是不是宗族裡的親戚？
也有長輩提到我們宗族好像是平埔族原住民。
聽聞長輩這麼說，也燃起我對姓氏來源的好奇，
回到家立刻上網"估狗"了一下，
結果完全沒有相關的資訊．．．．

查了好幾天一點進展也沒有，
就在茫無頭緒之時，有朋友建議我，
應該可以向南投的國史館查證，．．．．

根據國史館台灣文獻館劉澤民教授的考證，
我們陣姓一支是東螺社的平埔族，
族名為「巴布薩族」，
原本居住在東螺一帶，（位於今日的彰化縣北斗地區）
由於不願意接受漢化而遷徙到埔里，
「陣」是平埔族文獻就已經出現的姓了，
在埔里的東螺社的平埔族後裔還有姓貓、茆、豹...等姓氏的，
都是不願意接受漢化而遷徙到埔里的。

 

 

 

 

 

 

Classification of Formosan Languages

The seminal article in the classification of Formosan—and, by extension, the top-level structure of Austronesian—is Blust (1999). Prominent Formosanists (linguists who specialize in Formosan languages) take issue with some of its details, but it remains the point of reference for current linguistic analyses, and is shown below. The Malayo-Polynesian languages are frequently included within Blust's Eastern Formosan branch due to their shared leveling of proto-Austronesian *t, *C to /t/ and *n, *N to /n/, their shift of *S to /h/, and vocabulary such as *lima "five" which are not attested in other Formosan languages.

In addition to Malayo-Polynesian, thirteen Formosan families are broadly accepted. Debate centers primarily around the relationships between these families. Two classifications are presented here, Blust (1999), who links two families into a Western Plains group, two more in a Northwestern Formosan group, and three into an Eastern Formosan group, and the Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database (2008), which links five families into a Northern Formosan group, two in a Tsouic group, and links Malayo-Polynesian with Paiwan in a Paiwanic group.

Other studies have presented phonological evidence for a reduced Paiwanic family of Paiwanic, Puyuma, Bunun, Amis, and Malayo-Polynesian, but this is not reflected in vocabulary. The Eastern Formosan peoples Basay, Kavalan, and Amis share a homeland motif that has them coming originally from an island called Sinasay or Sanasay (Li 2004). The Amis, in particular, maintain that they came from the east, and were treated by the Puyuma, amongst whom they settled, as a subservient group (Taylor 1888).

Extinct languages

• Babuza
• Basay
• Favorlang
• Hoanya
• Ketagalan
• Makatao
• Pazeh (last speaker: Pan Jin-yu; died Oct. 24, 2010)
• Popora
• Taivoan
• Taokas
• Siraya

 

Blust (1999)

• Tsouic
  • Tsou
  • Saaroa
  • Kanakanabu
• Western Plains
  • Thao (AKA Sao. Brawbaw, Shtafari dialects)
  • Central Western Plains
    • Babuza (Taokas, Poavosa dialects)
    • Popora-Hoanya (Popora, Hoanya dialects)
• Northwest Formosan
  • Saisiyat (Taai, Tungho dialects)
  • Pazeh (AKA Kulun)
• Atayalic
  • Atayal
  • Seediq (AKA Truku, Taroko)
• East Formosan
  • Northern (Kavalanic)
    • Basai (Trobiawan, Linaw-Qauqaul dialects)
    • Kavalan
    • Ketagalan
  • Central (Ami)
    • Nataoran (North Amis)
    • Amis
  • Siraya
  • Malayo-Polynesian
• Bunun
• Rukai (Mantauran, Tona, and Maga dialects are divergent)
• Puyuma
• Paiwan (southern tip of Formosa)

 

Li (2008)

Families of Formosan languages before Chinese colonization, per Li (2008). The three languages (Bunun, Puyuma, Paiwan) may form a Southern Formosan branch, but this is uncertain.

This classification retains Blust's East Formosan, and unites the other northern languages. Li proposes a Proto-Formosan (F0) ancestor and equates it with Proto-Austronesian (PAN), following the model in Starosta (1995). Rukai and Tsouic are seen as highly divergent, although the position of Rukai is highly controversial.

• F0: Formosan = Austronesian
  •   Rukai
    • Mantauran
    • Maga-Tona, Budai-Labuan-Taromak
  • F1
    •   Central (Tsouic)
      • Tsou
      • Southern Tsouic
        • Saaroa
        • Kanakanabu
    • F2
      •   Northern Formosan
        • Northwestern (Plains)
          • Saisiyat–Kulon–Pazeh
          • Western
            • Thao
            • West Coast (Popora–Hoanya–Babuza–Taokas)
        • Atayalic
          • Squliq Atayal
          • Ts'ole' Atayal (= C'uli')
          • Seediq
      •   East Formosan
        • Kavalan–Basay
        • Siraya–Amis
      • ? Southern [uncertain]
        •   Bunun
          • Isbukun
          • Northern and Central (Takitudu and Takbanuao)
        •   Paiwan–Puyuma [uncertain]

 

Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database (2008)

Families of Formosan languages before Chinese colonization, per the Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database (Greenhill, Blust & Gray 2008).

This investigation keeps Li's Northern Formosan, but breaks up Blust's Eastern Formosan, and suggests Paiwan may be the closest to Malayo-Polynesian. It also unites Tsouic and Rukai, the two most divergent languages in Li.

 

 * Kavalanic (This is an obvious, low-level grouping)

• Basay (Trobiawan, Linaw-Qauqaut dialects)
• Kavalan
• Ketagalan

*  Northern Formosan (These groups are linked with an estimated 97% probability)

• Thao (AKA Sao. Brawbaw, Shtafari dialects)
• Western Plains
  • Babuza (AKA Favorlang. Taokas, Poavosa dialects)
  • Popora-Hoanya (Popora, Hoanya dialects)
• Saisiyat (Taai, Tungho dialects)
• Pazeh (AKA Kulun)
• Atayalic
  • Atayal (Squliq, C’uli’)
  • Seediq (AKA Truku, Taroko)

*  Ami (Another low-level grouping)

• Sakizaya
• Nataoran (North Amis)
• Amis

*  Bunun

• Bunun

*  Tsou-Rukai (Tsou and Rukai are connected with moderate confidence, estimated at 85% probability.)

• Tsouic
  • Tsou
  • Saaroa
  • Kanakanabu
• Rukai (Mantauran, Tona, and Maga dialects are divergent)

*  Siraya

• Siraya (Taivoan, Makatao dialects)

* Puyuma

• Puyuma

*  Paiwanic (Malayo-Polynesian and Paiwan are linked with a low level of confidence (74%).)

• Paiwan (southern tip of Formosa)
• Malayo-Polynesian

 

Sagart (2004)

Sino-Austronesian is a proposed language family. Its original version was first presented by Laurent Sagart in the early 1990s. Using reconstructions of the Old Chinese language, Sagart argued that the Austronesian languages were related to the Sinitic languages both lexically and morphologically. Additionally, the Tai-Kadai languages were placed internally within the Austronesian family as a sister branch of Malayo-Polynesian. He also considers the Austro-Asiatic language family to be a likely candidate for inclusion, since if the Austric hypothesis proves to be true, Austro-Asiatic would follow along with the Tai-Kadai branch's inclusion in Sino-Austronesian.

If compared with genetic evidence, the Sino-Austronesian family would correspond to Haplogroup O, a paternally-transmitted human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. Laurent Sagart has also shown that his Sino-Austronesian proposal does not contradict genetic studies in any major way.

Related proposals include Austric (Wilhelm Schmidt), Austro-Tai (Paul K. Benedict), and Dené-Caucasian (Sergei Starostin).

• Sino-Austronesian (Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian)
  • Tibeto-Burman ("Sino-Tibetan languages")
  • Austronesian
    • Luilang, Pazeh, Saisiat
    • Pituish
      • Atayalic (Thao, Favorlang, Taokas, Papora, Hoanya)
      • Enemish
        • Siraya
        • Walu-Siwaish
          • Tsouic (Paiwan, Rukai, Puyuma, Amis, Bunun)
          • Muish
            • Northeastern Formosan (Ketagalan, Kavalan, etc.)
            • Daic or Kra-Dai (Tai-Kadai)
            • Malayo-Polynesian

 

* The Higher Phyolgeny of Austronesian and the Position of Tai-Kadaii by Laurent SagartEnriched Higher An Phylogeny Based on Basic-Lexical and Morphological Innovations (gray area at bottom)

Taxon names are in bold type. To the exception of the NE-Formosan languages Kavalan and Ketagalan, no claim is made that the languages whose names are in the same column (for instance Luilang, Pazeh and Saisiat) form a taxon. Dotted arrows indicate an oversea migration. 'FATK' = Formosan Ancestor of Tai-Kadai; 'FAMP' = 'Formosan Ancestor of Malayo-Polynesian'.

 

Ross (2009)

(Chart from Linguistic Evidence for Austronesian Homeland and Dispersal by Paul Jen-kuei Li)

In 2009, Malcolm Ross proposed a new classification of the Austronesian language family based on morphological evidence from various Formosan languages. He proposed that since the current reconstructions for Proto-Austronesian actually correspond to an intermediate stage, and they would actually correspond to "Proto-Nuclear Austronesian." Notably, Ross' classification does not support the unity of the Tsouic languages, instead considering the Southern Tsouic languages of Kanakanavu and Saaroa to be a separate subgroup. This would support Chang's (2006) claim that Tsouic is not a valid subgroup.

• Austronesian (Ross 2009)
  • Puyuma
  • Rukai
  • Tsou
  • Nuclear Austronesian
    • Kanakanavu and Saaroa
    • Northwest Formosan: Saisiyat, Kulon-Pazih
    • Atayalic: Atayal, Seediq
    • Western Plains: Thao, Taokas, Favorlang-Babuza, Papora, Hoanya
    • Bunun
    • Paiwan
    • East Formosan: Basay-Trobiawan, Kavalan, Amis, Siraya
    • Malayo-Polynesian: all extra-Formosan languages, including Yami (Tao)

 

 

台灣南島語言

台灣南島語言（Formosan）或稱高山語、台灣原住民族語，在語言分類上是屬於南島語系台灣南島語族，一共有23個語言，可以再細分成「泰雅語群」、「排灣語群」、以及「鄒語群」等三個語群。使用人口約17萬人。

除了世居蘭嶼的達悟族所使用的達悟語（雅美語）是屬於分布於呂宋海峽諸島群的南島語系馬來-玻里尼西亞語族巴丹語群（Batanic / Bashiic）外，其他台灣原住民族所使用的語言都屬於南島語系台灣南島語言。台灣南島語言在整個南島語系中佔著極為特殊的地位，古南島語中所出現的動、植物群，常見於台灣島內不同的地形及氣候區內，這些證據顯示台灣南島語言十分古老。以這些語言研究上的證據作為基礎，甚至有相當多的語言學家相信，台灣是整個南島民族的「祖居地」（homeland）之一。

「台灣南島語言」在南島語族的分類位置

相關的語言學者對於台灣南島語言在整個南島語族的分類位置，有以下幾種不同的看法：

將「台灣南島語言」視為是「西部南島語」的一支: 傳統上，語言學者依照所謂的「華理士分界線」（the Wallace line）將南島語族分成兩大類：東部南島語（Oceanic，指大洋洲的南島語）以及西部南島語（Hesperonesian，指非大洋洲的南島語）。戴恩（Dyen 1963）和土田滋（Tsuchida 1976）都認為台灣南島語言跟西部南島語比較接近，因此只是西部南島語群的一個分支，並無特殊的地位。這是代表傳統的分類法。

將「台灣南島語言」視為是「北部南島語」:奧德裏庫（Haudricourt 1965）則把台灣南島語與東部南島語、西部南島語三分而立，並稱台灣南島語為北部南島語。

將「台灣南島語言」視為是南島語系的第一分支: 達爾（Dahl 1976）認為台灣南島語保存了最多古南島語（Proto-Austronesian）的特徵，應該被視為是整個南島語族的第一分支。在這個基礎上，白樂思（Blust 1982）更進一步把南島語族分為四個分支：泰雅群、鄒語群、排灣群、以及馬來亞玻里尼西亞群。在超過1200種的南島語族語言當中，數量上只有20幾種的台灣南島語竟然被劃分成三個不同的語群，佔了四個南島語群當中的三個，其在南島語系中的重要地位自然不言可喻。

也是基於同樣的考慮，有些學者則將南島語系分成兩大部分，一部份是台灣南島語群，另一部份則是馬來亞-玻里尼西亞語群，這也是Ethnologue: Languages of the World（2004）目前所採取的分類方式。在該語言資料庫所收集的1262個南島語系語言當中，這些語言被分成兩大類，其中23個屬於台灣南島語的語言被歸類為「台灣南島語族」（Formosan），另外1239個其他的不同語言則被歸類為「馬來亞-玻里尼西亞語族」（Malayo-Polynesian）。

綜論: 事實上，愈來愈多的南島語言學者承認台灣南島語的重要性。就目前的語言學研究而言，台灣至少是最古老的南島民族居住地之一，甚至極可能就是古南島民族的發源地（參見Blust 1985；Bellwood 1991）。在以下的討論中，我們將依照Ethnologue: Languages of the World（2005b）的報告，將被歸類為「台灣南島語族」的台灣南島語再細分成三個語群：泰雅語群、排灣語群、以及鄒語群。

「台灣南島語言」分類系譜

台灣南島語言共有23個，其中2個被歸為泰雅語群，17個被歸為排灣語群，4個被歸為鄒語群。未列入不屬於台灣南島語言的達悟語。

2009年，根據聯合國教科文組織報告，馬賽語、凱達格蘭語等7種語言已被認定流失；另外，噶瑪蘭語、貓霧捒語、邵語等7種語言被評為極度危急、賽夏語為嚴重危險，而泰雅語、卑南語、布農語等9種語言則為脆弱等級。

• 泰雅語群 (Atayalic) (2)
  • 泰雅語 (Atayal)
  • 賽德克語 (Seediq)
• 排灣語群 (Paiwanic) (21)
  • 阿美語 ('Amis, Pangcah)
    • 荳蘭阿美語（'Amis, Nataoran）
  • 布農語 (Bunun)
  • 巴布薩語 (Babuza)(貓霧捒)
    • 虎尾壟語(Favorlang)
  • 噶瑪蘭語 (Kebalan)
  • 猴猴語(Qauqaut)
  • 西拉雅語 (Siraiya)
    • 大滿語 (Taivuan)(四社熟番)
    • 馬卡道語 (Makatau)
  • 洪雅語 (Honya)
  • 凱達格蘭語 (Ketangalan)
    • 巴賽語 (Basay)
    • 雷朗語(Luilang)
  • 龜崙語(Kulon)
  • 賽夏語 (Saisiyat)
  • 道卡斯語 (Taokas)
  • 巴布拉語 (Papora,Papura; 干仔轄(Camachat; 巴布拉語))
  • 排灣語 (Paiwan)
  • 卑南語 (Pyuma/普優瑪)
  • 巴宰語 (Pazih, Pazeh)
    • 噶哈巫語(Kaxabu, Kahabu)(眉溪四庄)
  • 邵語 (Thao)
• 鄒語群 (Tsouic) (4)
  • 魯凱語 (Rukai)
  • 北鄒語群 (Northern) (1)
    • 鄒語 (Tsou,Cou)
  • 南鄒語群 (Southern) (2)
    • 卡那卡那富語(Kanakanavu)
    • 沙阿魯阿語(Saaroa)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Dutch Pacification Campaign on Formosa

A Landdag meeting between the Dutch and Formosans

The Dutch Pacification Campaign on Formosa was a series of military actions and diplomatic moves undertaken in 1635 and 1636 by Dutch colonial authorities in Formosa (modern-day Taiwan), aimed at subduing hostile aborginal villages in the south-western region of the island. Prior to the campaign the Dutch had been in Formosa for eleven years, but did not control much of the island beyond their principal fortress at Tayouan (安平區), and an alliance with the town of Sinkan (新市鄉; Siraya Tribe). The other aboriginal villages in the area conducted numerous attacks on the Dutch and their allies, with the chief belligerents being the village of Mattau (麻豆鎮; Siraya Tribe), who in 1629 ambushed and slaughtered a group of sixty Dutch soldiers.

After receiving reinforcements from the colonial headquarters at Batavia, the Dutch launched an attack in 1635 and were able to crush opposition and bring the area around present-day Tainan fully under their control. After seeing Mattau and Soulang, the most powerful villages in the area, defeated so comprehensively, many other villages in the surrounding area came to the Dutch to seek peace and surrender sovereignty to the Europeans. Thus the Dutch were able to dramatically expand the extent of their territorial control in a short space of time, and avoid the need for further fighting. The end of the campaign came in February 1636, when representatives from twenty-eight villages attended a ceremony in Tayouan to cement Dutch sovereignty.

Solidifying the southwest under their rule, the Dutch were able to expand their operations from the limited entrepôt trading carried out by the colony prior to 1635. The expanded territory allowed access to the deer trade, which later became very lucrative, and guaranteed security in food supplies. It provided fertile land, which the Dutch used imported Chinese labour to farm. The aboriginal villages also provided warriors to aid the Dutch in times of trouble, notably in the Lamey Island Massacre (小琉球) of 1636, the Dutch defeat of the Spanish in 1642 and the Guo Huaiyi Rebellion in 1652. The allied villages also provided opportunities for the Dutch missionaries to spread their faith. The pacification campaign is considered the foundation stone on which the later success of the colony was built.

Background: The Dutch East India Company (VOC) arrived in southern Formosa in 1624 and, after building their stronghold of Fort Zeelandia on the peninsula of Tayouan, began to sound out local villages as to the possibility of forming alliances. Although initially the intention was to run the colony solely as an entrepôt (a trading port), the Dutch later decided that they needed control over the hinterland to provide some security. Additionally, a large percentage of supplies for the Dutch colonists had to be shipped from Batavia at great expense and irregular intervals, and the government of the fledgling colony was keen to source foodstuffs and other supplies locally. The Company decided to ally with the closest village, the relatively small Sinkan, who were able to supply them firewood, venison and fish. However, relations with the other villages were not so friendly. The aboriginal settlements of the area were involved in more or less constant low-level warfare with each other (head-hunting raids and looting of property), and an alliance with Sinkan put the Dutch at odds with the foes of that village. In 1625 the Dutch bought a piece of land from the Sinkaners for the sum of fifteen cangans (a kind of cloth), where they then built the town of Sakam for Dutch and Chinese merchants.

Initially other villages in the area, chiefly Mattau, Soulang (佳里鎮; Siraya Tribe) and Bakloan (安定鄉; Siraya Tribe, Tackalan branch), also professed their desire to live in peace with the Dutch. The villages saw that it was in their interest to maintain good relations with the newcomers, but this belief was weakened by a series of incidents between 1625 and 1629. The earliest of these was a Dutch attack on Chinese pirates in the bay of Wancan, not far from Mattau, in 1625. The pirates were able to drive off the Dutch soldiers, causing the Dutch to lose face among the Formosan villages. Encouraged by this Dutch failure, warriors from Mattau raided Sinkan, believing the Dutch too weak to defend their Formosan friends. At this point, the Dutch returned to Wancan and this time were able to rout the pirates, restoring their reputation. Mattau was then forced by the colonials to return the property stolen from Sinkan and make reparations in the form of two pigs. The peace was short-lived, however, because in November 1626 the villagers of Sinkan attacked Mattau and Bakloan, before running to the Dutch to ask for protection from retribution. Although the Dutch were able to force Sinkan's enemies to back down in this case, in later incidents they proved incapable of fully protecting their Formosan allies.

Frustrated by the inability of the Dutch to protect them, the Sinkan villagers turned to Japanese traders, who were not on friendly terms with the VOC. In 1627 a delegation from the village visited Japan in order to ask for Japanese protection and to offer sovereignty to the Japanese Shōgun Tokugawa Iemitsu. The Shōgun refused them an audience, but on their return to Formosa the Sinkan villagers, along with their erstwhile foes from Mattau, Bakloan and Soulang, went to Governor Nuyts to demand that the company pay an annual tribute to the villages for operating on their land. The Governor refused. Soon after, the Japanese isolationist policy of sakoku removed Japanese support for the Formosans, leaving Sinkan once more at the mercy of its rivals, prompting missionary George Candidius to write that "this village Sinkan has been until now under Dutch protection, and without this protection it would not stand for even a month." In 1629 however the Dutch were unable to defend either themselves or their allies. Governor Nuyts went to Mattau on an official (friendly) visit with a guard of sixty musketeers, who were fêted on their arrival. After leaving the village the next morning, the musketeers were ambushed while crossing a stream and slaughtered to a man, by warriors of both Mattau and Soulang. The Governor had a lucky escape as he had returned to Fort Zeelandia the previous evening.

Shortly after the massacre Governor Nuyts was recalled by the VOC Governor-General in Batavia for various offences, including responsibility for the souring of relations with the Japanese. Hans Putmans replaced Nuyts as Governor, and immediately wanted to attack the ringleaders in Mattau, but the village was judged too strong to assault directly. Therefore the Dutch moved against the weaker Bakloan, who they believed sheltered proponents of the massacre, setting out on 23 November 1629 and returning later that day "having killed many people and burned most of the village." The Bakloan villagers sued for peace, and Mattau too signed a nine-month peace accord with the company. However in the years that followed, the Mattau, Bakloan and Soulang villagers continued a concerted campaign to harass employees of the Company, particularly those who were rebuilding structures destroyed by the Mattauers in Sakam. The situation showed no signs of improvement for the Dutch, until relations between Mattau and Soulang soured in late 1633 and early 1634. The two villages went to war in May 1634, and although Mattau won the fight, the Company was happy to see divisions among the villages which it felt it could exploit.

Dutch Retaliation: Although both Governor Nuyts and subsequently Governor Putmans wanted to move against Mattau, the garrison at Fort Zeelandia numbered only 400, of which 210 were soldiers – not enough to undertake a major campaign without leaving the Dutch fortress guard under-strength. After persistent unheeded requests from the two Governors, in 1635 Batavia finally sent a force of 475 soldiers to Taiwan, to "avenge the murder of the expeditionary force against Mattau in 1629, to increase the prestige of the Company, and to obtain the respect and authority, necessary for the protection of the Chinese who had come all the way from China, to cultivate the land."

By this stage relations with the other villages had also deteriorated to the extent that even Sinkan, previously thought to be tightly bound to the Dutch, was plotting rebellion. The missionary Robert Junius, who lived among the natives, wrote that "rebels in Sinkan have conspired against our state . . . and [are planning] to murder and beat to death the missionaries and soldiers in Sinkan." The Governor in Tayouan moved quickly to quell the uprising, sending eighty soldiers to the village and arresting some of the key conspirators. With potential disaster averted in Sinkan, the Dutch were further encouraged by the news that Mattau and Soulang, their principal enemies, were being ravaged by smallpox, whereas Sinkan, now back under Dutch control, was spared the disease - this being viewed as a divine sign that the Dutch were righteous.

On 22 November 1635 the newly arrived forces set out for Bakloan, headed by Governor Putmans. Missionary Junius joined him with a group of native warriors from Sinkan, who had been persuaded to take part by the clergyman in order to further good relations between themselves and the VOC. The plan was initially to rest there for the night, before attacking Mattau the next morning, but the Dutch forces received word that the Mattau villagers had learned of their approach and planned to flee. They therefore decided to press on and attack that evening, succeeding in surprising the Mattau warriors and subduing the village without a fight. The Dutch summarily executed 26 men of the village, before setting fire to the houses and returning to Bakloan.

On the way back to Fort Zeelandia, the troops stopped in Bakloan, Sinkan and Sakam, at each step warning the chiefs of the village of the price of angering the VOC, and obtaining guarantees of friendly conduct in the future. The village of Soulang sent two representatives to the Dutch while they were resting in Sinkan, offering a spear and a hatchet as a symbol that they would ally their forces to the Dutch. Also present with offers of friendship were men from Tevorang, a collection of three villages in the hills previously outside Dutch influence. Finally two chiefs from Mattau arrived, kow-towing to the Dutch officials and wishing to sue for peace.

The aborigines signalled their surrender by sending a few of their best weapons to the Dutch, and then by bringing a small tree (often betel nut) planted in earth from their village as a token of the granting of sovereignty to the VOC. Over the next few months as word of the Dutch victory spread, more and more villages came to pay their respects at Fort Zeelandia and assure the VOC of their friendly intentions. However, the new masters of Mattau also inherited their enemies, with both Favorlang (虎尾鎮; Babuza Tribe) and Tirosen ( 嘉義市; Hoanya Tribe) expressing hostility towards the VOC in the wake of their victory.

After the victory over Mattau the Governor decided to make use of the soldiers to cow other recalcitrant villages, starting with Taccariang, who had previously killed both VOC employees and Sinkan villagers. The villagers first fought with the Sinkanders who were acting as a vanguard, but on receiving a volley from the Dutch musketeers the Taccariang warriors turned and fled. The VOC forces entered the village unopposed, and burnt it to the ground. From Taccariang they moved on to Soulang, where they arrested warriors who had participated in the 1629 massacre of sixty Dutch soldiers and torched their houses. The last stop on the campaign trail was Tevorang (玉井鄉; Tsou Tribe), which had previously sheltered wanted men from other villages. This time the Governor decided to use the carrot rather than the stick, offering gifts and assurances of friendship, with the consequences of resistance left implicit. The Tevorangans took the hint, and offered no opposition to Dutch rule.

Pax Hollandica: On hearing of the Dutch show of force, aboriginal tribes from further afield decided to submit to Dutch rule, either through fear of Dutch military might or hope that such an alliance would prove beneficial to the tribe. Representatives came from Pangsoia, 100 km to the south, to ally themselves with the VOC. The Dutch decided to hold a Landdag (a grand convention) to welcome all the villages into the fold and impress them with Dutch largesse and power. This duly took place on 22 February 1636, with 28 villages represented from southern and central Formosa. The Governor presented the attendees with robes and staffs of State to symbolise their position, and Robert Junius wrote that "it was delightful to see the friendliness of these people when they met for the first time, to notice how they kissed each other and gazed at one another. Such a thing had never before been witnessed in this country, as one tribe was nearly always waging war against another."

The net effect of the Dutch campaign was a pax hollandica (Dutch peace), assuring VOC control in the southwest of the island. The Dutch called their new area of control the Verenigde Dorpen (United Villages), a deliberate allusion to the United Provinces of their homeland. The campaign was vital to the success and growth of the Dutch colony, which had operated as more of a trading post than a true colony until that point.

 

 

Gilbertus Happart was a seventeenth-century Dutch missionary to Formosa (now known as Taiwan). He was stationed in the village of Favorlang (modern-day Huwei) and wrote a dictionary of the Babuza language of the inhabitants

 

Dictionary of the Favorlang Dialect of the Formosan Language by Gilbertus Happart

 

 

 

* Asia in the Making of Europe: A Century of Advances: East Asia by Donald F. Larch, Edwin J.Van Kley

Excerpt: A brief English report of the Dutch Reformed mission in Formosa appeared in 1650. It is essentially a celebration of the success of Robertus Junius, a Dutch missionary on Formosa from 1629 to 1643, written by his friend Caspar Sibellius. Apart from listing some of their idolatrous and immoral traits, however, Sibellius does not describe the Formosans or their land. The Dutch missionaries worked both at teaching the aborigines to read Dutch and at developing a script for their own languages, into which parts of Christian scriptures and the Heidelberg Catechism could be translated. Several such translations were produced for the missionaries' use, and in 1650 Gibertus Happart compiled a dictionary of the "Favorling" language. It did not appear in print during the seventeenth century, however. Of the missionaries' translations only catechisms by Junius (1645) and Gravius (1661), and Gravius' Gospels of Saint Matthew and Saint John (1661) appear to have been published during the century. From these an enterprising European reader might have gained some exposure to the sounds of an aboriginal Formosa language.

 

 

* An Account of Missionary Success in the Island of Formosa: Published in London in 1650 and now reprinted with copious appendices by William Campbell

Excerpt: But we wish now to say a little about the villages north of Tilosen. Close upon six years ago, the Rev. Simon van Breen began to lay the foundations of Christianity there, doing so in the most sensible manner, and with much success. after the daparture of the Rev. Jacobus Vertrecht, he continued this work with unabated zeal and diligence till the pesent time--the Rev. Gilbertus Happart having been associated with him since last year.

 

* Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier, 1600-1800 by John Robert Shepherd

Excerpt: Again in 1652, Verburg attacked the clergy on these issues: "The daily complaints of the Chinese leaseholders in the north sufficiently prove how very superficially this Gilbertus [Happart] did his work of converting the heathen. Your excellency can hardly imagine what measures he adopted in order to rob the leaseholders of their deer's flesh and skins, and what tricks and malpractices he employed to fill his own purse. "Verburg no doubt had a point that the clergy were concerned less with advancing the welfare of the natives than with protecting their own status in the villages, which might be undermined if Chinese leaseholders were given too free a rein nad if the clerics had no power to keep them in check and prevent their cheating the villagers. It is hard to evaluate Verburg's charges of venality against the clergy. He lodged several such charges, most of which were dismissed, and this one was apparently never pressed.

Verburg's priorities are clear: the company's revenue comes from the fees the leaseholders pay, and it is the leaseholders that he defends. his protests that for the aborigines the leaseholds were not "burdensome in the least" or that the tax was so small that "even very poor people cannot find it to be anything of a hardship" are disingenuous....

 

 

* Missionary Approaches and Linguistics in Mainland China and Taiwan by Weiying Gu

Excerpt: The tribes-people of Favorlang had been subdued once on the 30th October 1637 and once again on the 2nd December 1638, but to no avail. They kept chasing away Chinese hunters, both in 1639 and 1640 although the latter had hunting licenses provided by the Dutch. For the time, however, it was beyond their means to punish the inhabitants of Favorlang. This severely eroded the prestige of the Dutch among the Chinese and among the other tribes. In order to avoid further loss of prestige - the Dutch were afraid that the loss of prestige eventually would lead to the disolution of the alliance - they decided to stop selling hunting licenses for one year. This measure seemed to have eased tensions. The Batavia Dagh-register of 31 December 1640 states: "The inhabitants of Formosa in all villages and surrounding places behaved themselves as obedient subjects; the ones from Davole and Favorlang also kept quiet and didn't cause the Chinese any more trouble." The Dutch however only wanted to appease those of Favorlang for a time, determined as they were to take punitive action as soon as they were able....

 

 

The Articles of Christian Instruction in Favorlang-Formosan, Dutch and English from Vertrecht's Manuscript of 1650 by Wm Campbell

 

Lord's Prayer in Dutch and Favorlang

 

 

Formosa Under the Dutch
by William Campbell

荷據下的福爾摩莎

 

 

The Colonial 'Civilizing Process' in Dutch Formosa, 1624-1662
by Chiu Hsin-Hui

 

 

Formosa Sika Deer

番社采風圖‧捕鹿圖上題字：淡防廳大甲、後壟、中港、竹塹、宵裡等社熟番，至秋末冬初，各社聚眾捕鹿，名為出草。 中央研究院歷史語言研究所藏

The Formosa sika deer, (台灣梅花鹿), is a subspecies of sika deer endemic to the island of Taiwan. Formosan sika, like most of the terrestrial fauna and flora of Taiwan, arrived on the island during Pleistocene glacial periods when lower sea levels connected Taiwan to the Asian mainland.

Sika populations in Taiwan have been heavily influenced by human activity for the past four hundred years. Until the early 17th century the human population of Taiwan was low and comprised mostly Austronesian peoples who had been living on the island for 1000’s or years. During the 17th century immigration from the Chinese mainland increased dramatically in response to political instability in China and economic opportunities on Taiwan, which from 1624 until 1684 was controlled by the Dutch East India Company. The company, operating from the port of Taiwanfu (now Tainan) in southwestern Taiwan, established a trading post whose main business was the export of sika skins to Europe. During the six decades of Dutch activity two to four million sika skins were exported to Europe. Exporting was reduced when the Dutch were forced out of Taiwan in 1684, but continued throughout the Qing period with a switch to Japan as the major export market.

The intensive hunting of sika during the Dutch era must have severely decreased the population of sika. Sika populations continued to decline over the next few centuries as the human population expanded—the natural habitat of sika in the lowland plains was steadily converted to farmland, and later urbanized, as the human population increased. Hunting also continued. As a result, wild sika populations decreased steadily, and in 1969 the last known wild sika was killed.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Kingdom of Middag

Kingdom of Middag, 1540-1732

The Kingdom of Middag was a kingdom located in central Taiwan. The kingdom was established by the Taiwanese aboriginal tribes of Popora, Babuza, Pazeh, and Hoanya. The kingdom occupied present-day Taichung, Changhua, and Nantou. It was established in the 16th century, before the Europeans arrived in Taiwan. It survived the rulings of European colonists and the Kingdom of Tungning led by Koxinga. However, the kingdom was conquered in approximately 1732 by Qing forces under the administration of Yongzheng Emperor.

Names: The Kingdom of Middag is the western name for the kingdom. In Taiwan, it is known as the Kingdom of Dadu (大肚王國), Dadu being the modern-day name of the historical capital Middag.

The leader of the kingdom also had different titles. The Dutch name of the title was Keizer van Middag, the German name was Keiser von Mittag, the Hoklo name was Quata Ong, and the most common aboriginal name was Lelian ("Sun King").

History: The kingdom first came into contact with the West in early 17th century. After the Dutch East India Company established its outpost at Taoyoan in 1624, it came into armed conflicts with the kingdom on some occasions, and was able to force the kingdom into submission. The kingdom, however, maintained its semi-autonomous status, and had the authority to ban European missionary activities in its territory. Generally speaking, the kingdom maintained a friendly relation with the Dutch.

In 1662, Ming loyalist Koxinga and his followers laid siege to the Dutch outpost, and eventually established the Kingdom of Tungning. Tungning and Middag were constantly at odds due to Middag's friendly relations with the Dutch, and hostility between the kingdom's population and the Han people that constituted the population of Tungning. Furthermore, the Kingdom of Tungning was in constant need of expansion in order to realize its ultimate goal - defeat the Qing empire and restore the Ming Dynasty. Therefore, the two kingdoms clashed on numerous occasions, with the territory of Tungning gradually expanded and Middag forced to retreat.

After the Qing's successful campaign that resulted in the capitulation of the Kingdom of Tungning, the Kingdom of Middag faced an even more powerful and capable enemy. During the reign of Yongzheng Emperor of Qing in the 18th century, the kingdom was constantly at war with the empire, and suffered numerous defeats. The kingdom eventually collapsed and ceased to exist, and its descendants are scattered in present day Puli in central Taiwan.

 

 

Puli

Puli (埔里鎮) is an urban township in Nantou County, Taiwan. It is the geographic center of Taiwan.

In the 19th century the city was known as Posia (埔社) or Polisia (埔裏社). The Atayal name of the settlement was Sabaha Bakalas, meaning "house of stars".

One of the main economic activities in Puli is tourism. It is located in the mountainous center of Taiwan, and many tourist destination spots are nearby. The most well-known is Sun Moon Lake, a 30-minute drive from Puli. There is a nationally owned brewery in the township. The Chung-tai Chan Monastery (中台禪寺), the largest Buddhist temple in Nantou County, is also located in Puli.

In 1999, this town was damaged by the 921 earthquake.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Plains Aborigines

A Plains Tribe Aborigine child and woman

The Plains Aborigines mainly lived in stationary village sites surrounded by defensive walls of bamboo. The village sites in southern Taiwan were more populated than other locations. Some villages supported a population of more than 1500 people, surrounded by smaller satellite villages (Kang 2003:111–117). Siraya villages were constructed of dwellings made of thatch and bamboo, raised 2 m from the ground on stilts, with each household having a barn for livestock. A watchtower was located in the village to look out for headhunting parties from the highland tribes. The concept of property was often communal, with a series of conceptualized concentric rings around each village. The innermost ring was used for gardens and orchards that followed a fallowing cycle around the ring. The second ring was used to cultivate plants and natural fibers for the exclusive use of the tribe. The third ring was for exclusive hunting and deer fields for tribal use. The plains people hunted herds of spotted deer and muntjak as well as conducting light millet farming. Sugar and rice were grown as well, but mostly for use in preparing wine (Shepherd 1993:29–34).

Many of the plains peoples were matrilineal/matrifocal societies. Men married into a woman’s family after a courtship period where the woman was free to reject as many men as she wished before marriage. In the age-grade communities, couples entered into marriage in their mid-30s when a man would no longer be required to perform military service or hunt heads on the battle-field. In the matriarchal system of the Siraya, it was also necessary for couples to abstain from marriage until their mid-thirties, when the bride’s father would be in his declining years and would not pose a challenge to the new male member of the household. It was not until the arrival of the Dutch Reformed Church in the 17th Century, that the marriage and child-birth taboos were abolished. There is some indication that many of the younger members of Sirayan society embraced the Dutch marriage customs as a means to circumvent the age-grade system in a push for greater village power (Shepherd 1995:61–65). Almost all indigenous peoples in Taiwan have traditionally had a custom of sexual division of labor. Women did the sewing, cooking and farming, while the men hunted and prepared for military activity and securing enemy heads in headhunting raids, which was a common practice in early Taiwan. Women were also often found in the office of priestess or medium to the gods.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

* Population Genetic Studies on Nine Aboriginal Ethnic Groups of Taiwan - Red Cell Enzyme Systems by Feng Jin, et al.

Excerpt: About 400 years ago during the Ch'ing Dynasty, aboriginal people covered almost everywhere of the Taiwan Island.... The plains people are composed of at least ten ethnic groups, namely Ketagalan, Kavalan, Luilang, Taokas, Pazeh, Papora, Babuza, Thao, Hoanya, and Siraya. Based on the language, cultural and geographical features, mountain people are divided into nine ethnic groups, namely Atayal, Saisiat, Bunuh, Tsou, Paiwan, Rukai, Puyuma, Ami, and Yami.

 

* Immunoglobulin Allotypes among Taiwan Aborigines: Evidence of malarial selection could affect studies of population affinity by Moses S Schanfield, et al.

Abstract: The aborigines of Taiwan represent the indigenous inhabitants of the island at the time of the arrival of the Chinese from the mainland. Linguistically, the aboriginal Taiwanese are related to the Malayo-Polynesianspeaking inhabitants of Indonesia and the Philippines. Three tribes occupied lowland areas while six tribes occupied highland areas. Previous studies indicate that genetic markers associated with malaria occur in lowland populations. Though the GM haplotypes are demonstrated to be very useful in the measure of population affinities, the possibility of malarial selection on this locus could affect studies of population affinity. The present work is a case study to see whether a subdivided insular population under a possible selective load will provide divergent clustering analysis depending on the population sampled. Immunoglobulin allotype (GM and KM) profiles were generated on 230 lowland and 407 highland Taiwan Aborigines from the nine tribes. A highly significant difference in GM haplotype distribution was detected between lowland and highland populations (adjusted G = 69.408, 2 df [degrees of freedom], p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences in KM*1 frequency by altitude. The Taiwan Aboriginal GM and KM frequencies were compared to data from Indonesians, Vietnamese, Thai, Malay, Chinese from Taiwan, and Ryukyu Islanders from Okinawa using cluster analysis. The lowland populations plot among the Thai (N, NC) and Malayan Aborigines. In contrast, the highland and total Taiwan Aborigine samples plot with the Indonesian, Vietnamese, and Malayan Negrito samples. Thus, depending on the populations of Taiwan Aborigines used, different conclusions could be reached. The highland population supports the published linguistic ties; however, the lowland population does not support the linguistic relationship with Indonesian populations but is more closely related to Thai and Malays, or reflects a similar selection history.

 

* Taiwan Aboriginals and Peoples of the Pacific-Asia Region: Multivariate craniometric comparisons by M. Pietrusewsky, et al.

Abstract: Stepwise discriminant function analysis and Mahalanobis's generalized distance are applied to twenty-nine cranial measurements recorded in 2,531 male crania representing five Taiwan aboriginal cranial series and fifty prehistoric, modern, and near modern human groups. The Taiwan aboriginal cranial series include modern samples of Atayal, Bunun, Pazeh, Babuza, and archaeological human remains from the Shi San Hang site (ca 1800-500BP). The comparative cranial series represent East Asia, Southeast Asia, Australia, New Guinea, island Melanesia, Polynesia, and Micronesia. The results of two separate analyses, one using five and the other using fifty-five groups, are presented. A relatively close connection between the Babuza, Pazeh, and Shi San Hang aboriginal cranial series is observed while the Atayal and Bunun series remain relatively well differentiated. Connections between Taiwan aboriginal groups and cranial series from Polynesia suggest that Taiwan's aboriginal inhabitants may have been the ancestral source of these inhabitants of Remote Oceania. Similarly, these results suggest that the ultimate source of Taiwan's prehistoric and modern aboriginal groups may be among the early inhabitants of eastern (Northeast or Southeast) Asia. The results of the present craniometric analysis are compared with other lines of evidence which have been used to examine the affinities and origins of Taiwan's aboriginal peoples.

 

Diagram of Relationship Based on a Cluster Analysis (UPGMA) of Mahalanobis' Generalized Distances Using 29 Cranial Measurements Recorded in Five Male Taiwan Aboriginal Group

 

Plot of 55 Male Groups Means on the First Two Canonical Variates Using 29 Cranial Measurements

(Shi San Hang clusters with Guam, Hawaii, New Zealand, Tahiti, Marquesas)

 

Diagram of Relationship Based on a Cluster Analysis (UPGMA) of Mahalanobis' Generalized Distances Using 29 Cranial Measurements Recorded in 55 Male Groups

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Shi San Hang - 十三行遺址

十三行遺址，是台灣北部重要的考古遺址之一。該遺址位於台北縣八里鄉淡水河海口交界處的南岸，挖掘出陶器、鐵器、墓葬等各類豐富的史前遺物。該遺址的主人生存於距今約1800至500年前，在文化上屬於台灣史前時期的鐵器時代，是目前台灣唯一確定擁有煉鐵技術的史前居民，很有可能是台灣平埔族凱達格蘭人 (Ketagalan) 的祖先。該遺址被中華民國內政部訂為國家二級古蹟，目前保留遺址面積約一公頃，並在遺址旁設立十三行博物館，是台灣第一座縣立考古博物館。

人面陶罐

陶器: 十三行遺址所發掘出土的文化遺物中，陶器是數量最龐大的一批標本。其中，完整或可復原的陶器約126個，破碎的陶片佔最大宗，估計約超過80萬件。十三行遺址出土主流的紅褐色夾砂陶片，依據其施紋方式的不同，可以分為素面、拍印文系統、及壓印、刻劃、刺點、劙劃、捺點等。一般而言，紋飾多施於器物腹部及延伸的底部，大部分皆通體施紋，亦見紋飾呈環帶狀分布。

在各種出土陶器中，淡褐色陶器雖然數量不多，但卻有其他器物少見的粗條紋紋飾。灰黑色泥質陶器數量也不多，但是頗具特色，器型有小口大腹的罐與瓶，質地細緻，表面經常抹平磨光，肩部外表裝飾有刺點紋及圈點紋，紋樣常環繞器表一周。

在所有出土陶器當中，最引人注目的是被十三行博物館譽為「鎮館之寶」的「人面陶罐」。該陶罐在口緣、足部的表面均勻散佈圈印、櫛點等裝飾圖樣，在陶罐腹部則有生動的人面造型：微凸的眉脊、狹長的雙眼、微張的嘴角、再配上臉頰旁立起的雙耳。人面陶罐為墓葬出土文物，據學者推測可能為宗教用途。

青銅刀柄

鐵器: 從十三行遺址出土的鐵渣、礦石、煤等的研究，顯示該遺址主人己知煉鐵。此外，在十三行遺址也發掘出煉鐵作坊，證實煉鐵是在聚落內進行的。

出土的鐵器不算多，可能是因為氧化腐朽不易保存，以及再製造利用，以致出土器物數量較少。目前出土的鐵器皆器型不明，推斷是用來做武器。一般來說，如果具有農耕文化，應當有金屬製的農具，或是類似物。雖然目前已經證明十三行人能夠農耕，只是技術並不高明，他們同時也會畜養家畜。

其他器物: 除了日常用具外，十三行遺址也出土很多瑪瑙珠、玻璃手燭、玻璃耳玦、玻璃珠，以及其他質料的珠子。現址還發現金飾、鎏金青銅碗、銀管飾物、銅刀柄、銅碗、銅鈴、銅幣等罕見遺物。由於這些器物或者來自台灣其他的族群、或者來自南洋、或者來自中國，因此可能是與外界貿易交換所得來的。由此推斷，十三行在當時是台灣島內外重要交易地點，與外地的聯繫相當頻繁。

屈肢葬

墓葬相關人骨及器物:十三行遺址還出土了大批和墓葬相關的人骨及器物。依出土的姿勢與方向，人骨的姿式可分為九大類型，而其中最值得討論的便是屈肢葬。十三行遺址之主人的埋葬習俗，以頭朝西南臉向西北的側身屈肢為主，凶死者則往往以頭向東北的直肢葬方式埋葬，常見的陪葬品包括裝飾品陶罐、青銅柄、鐵刀等器物。在十三行遺址出土之前，台灣史前遺址中從無屈肢葬的葬式出現。而屈肢葬郤是台灣先住民主要的埋葬方式。

此外，由無頭葬出現可知聚落或族群間可能有戰爭或獵頭的行為。

「十三行文化人」的食衣住行: 十三行人以農業為主要生業，種植稻米等農作物。除了種稻外，漁獵也相當發達，他們到淡水河邊採取貝類、捕捉魚類、海中哺乳類，並到鄰近的山區狩獵鹿、山豬、羌、山羊等野生動物，充分利用了河海口及山林的豐富資源。吃完貝肉後，他們多會將貝殼丟棄在同一個地方，形成考古學家所稱的「貝塚」。

由於遺址上發現了史前人用來織布的陶紡輪，可知十三行人應會利用簡單工具來做衣服。但是因為這些衣服埋在地下太久而腐爛，已無法知道它們的顏色和樣式。

十三行人住在由木頭架高的屋子裡，藉以避免潮濕，並防止野獸的侵襲，學者稱此為「干欄屋」，而台灣原住民部落也都有類似建築。

在行的方面，十三行人和台灣島內、中國東南沿海以及南洋地區應有密切往來，所以才會在遺址上發現外來的陶器、青銅器、漢人錢幣、琉璃珠等。此外，十三行人的工藝技術相當發達，他們不僅會煉鐵，用鐵製作各種生活用品，還拿來和其他族群交換物品；他們也會燒製精美而細緻的陶瓶、陶罐等，閒暇之餘，還會利用陶土製作生動而精巧的人或動物形的陶偶。

從墓葬看來，十三行人的埋葬方式多是側身屈肢葬，且頭骨多半朝向西南方，可能有某種文化或信仰上的意義，並以陶器、珠飾、金屬器等陪葬。學界對於出土人骨的研究也顯示，十三行人很可能和台灣原住民一樣，喜歡嚼食檳榔、煙草，並常蹲在地上聊天、吃飯。

 

 

* Shi-san Hang Museum of Archaeology: How they used to live by Kevin Lax

Excerpt: The site has revealed something about their burial ceremonies: The dead were buried next to houses or nearby, there was no special burial ground. After death they were clothed, and a hat put on their head. Some people were buried in fine clothes, with pearl-laden garments and decorated hats. The dead were then placed on their side, with the head facing southwest and the face facing the sea. No remains of children under six years old have been found in Shi-san Hang, suggesting there was probably an alternative disposal method when infants died.

Because different types of animal bones have been found at Shi-san Hang, it can be surmised that hunting was a major activity. The Bali area was heavily forested 2,000 years ago, and the woods were home to wild pigs, Formosan Sika deer, and other animals.

       No nets have been found, but the large number of fish bones and net weights indicate that the people probably fished with nets. They had an iron-making capability, so they probably also used iron spears to catch fish.

Shi-san Hang had a great deal of interaction with other settlements in Taiwan, and, it is speculated, overseas. Many items not made locally have been unearthed: gold and silverware, glass bracelets, glass pearls, and copper coins.

       From these overseas products and the unearthed deep-sea fish bones, it can be surmised that the people knew how to make boats and sail the seas.

 

 

Table of Prehistoric Cultures (from Cultural History of Taiwan by wikipedia.org) × denotes nonexistence　　o denotes existence
Culture	Development status				Sites
	Pottery	Iron metallurgy	Basic agriculture	Rice cultivation	Yuanshan Site	Chihshan Rock Site	Botanical Garden Site
Hsientao culture	×	×	×	×	○	×	×
Tapenkeng culture	○	×	○	×	○	○	○
Yuanshan culture	○	×	○	○	○	○	○
Chihshan Rock culture	○	○	○	○	×	○	×
Botanical Garden culture	×	○	○	○	○	○	○
Shihsanhang culture	○	○	○	○	○	×	×

 

 

清水遺址出土二號頭骨正面觀

* 巴則海及貓霧拺平埔族人骨學分析

張菁芳在比較十三行遺址出土之人骨形態學分析時，曾利用台中地區平埔族巴則海10具人骨及西螺貓霧拺19具人骨做比對標本。經Mahalanobis距離及逐步判別族群分類顯示兩者在分類圖難以區分，表示此二族可能已有相當程度之混血情形，而與北部十三行人骨標本的關係較遠。若與原住民相比，巴則海族與泰雅族及布農族的距離最近。這一結論可說是目前唯一值得參考的史前、原住民及平埔族類緣關係的線索。陳叔倬利用HLA多態性頻率分別比較台灣人、原住民與亞洲、大洋洲、美洲原住民血緣關係後，也得出巴則海人、賽夏人及泰雅人生物距離較近的結果。

　　上述初步結果再與西部平原平埔族的語言群做相關比較。依南島語言學家費羅禮的分類，道卡斯、巴布拉、貓霧拺、巴則海均屬排灣語群，這個語言可能在本島內先行分化。易言之，要比屬於排灣語群Ⅱ的（西拉雅、布農、阿美、噶瑪蘭、雅美）早到台灣。李壬癸認為上述五族的語言「都有密切的關係，可說當初是由同一種語言分化出來的」。他又進一步地指出，五者之中，道、貓兩種語言關係相當接近，而巴、洪關係較疏。前者雖然關係較近，但在地理空間上與巴布拉夾在中間，他推想「巴為後來居中而使道、貓語言分化」 。另一種可能性是道、貓兩族中「有一群跨越巴布拉之後，分化成為語群。巴布拉與洪雅的語言關係不如道、貓」。

 

 

* 十三行遺址出土人骨之形態學與病理學分析及其比較研究 by 張菁芳

[ 摘要 ] 臺北縣八里鄉十三行遺址因工程建設之故，不得不於民國七十九年開始展開一連串之搶救發掘工作，其間共出土墓葬中人骨兩百九十一具。本研究則選了其中三十二具成年男女之人骨－－男性17具，女性15具，以測量及觀察的方法針對其形態學及病理學特徵怍初步分析，並配合統計學的方法作族群關係之研究。本研究主題包括以下四點 ：

１．十三行遺址出土人骨之骨骼形態學特徵。

２．運用第１．點的研究結果，嘗試探討十三行遺址出土人骨之親緣問題；並以其頭 骨測項目的資料，配合對頭骨上各項指數及統計學方法的分析，探討其與其他臺灣南島語族間之關係。

３．根據因慣性壓力所造成之骨骼上標記(skeletal markers of occupational stress) ，嘗試重建十三行遺址出土人骨在其生前，可能保有的若干職業性或習慣性的行為。

４．嘗試由病理現象之分析，瞭解十三行遺址出土人骨在其生前之健康狀況。而本研究所得到結果如下：

（一）十三行遺址居民之形態學特徵及其親緣關係

１．十三行遺址男性居民之頭骨形狀長、高而狹、尢其顫高相當高，明顯與其他臺灣南島語族不同。
２．在與其他四個族群之頭骨測量變項的單變項與多變項分析結果顯示，十三行遺址居民與平埔族中之巴則海族較近而與貓霧拺族較遠，但與高山族中之布農放及泰雅族則距離更遠，尤其是後者，顯示高山族與平埔族在體質特徵上有明顯差異，北部平埔族與中部平埔族亦有所不同。
３．十三行遺址居民之體骨有如下特徵：肋鎖溝、蹲踞小平面有高發生率，股骨頭凶絕大部份皆為卯圓形，普遍之彎曲狀股骨及脛骨；再加上其有出現搖椅狀下顎及部份搖椅狀下顎，上顎有百分之百之箕形門齒特徵及牙周病現象和微乎其微的齲齡發生率等，顯示出其與大洋洲之玻里尼西亞人有相當程度之相似性。

（二）十三行遺址居民某些職業性或習慣性的行為之分析研究筆者根據十三行遺址居民之牙齒及體骨的非測量性特徵與病理學上的特徵，推測其有以下行為：
１．十三行遺址居民除了正常的飲食行為之外，可能有嚼食檳榔或煙草之類物質的習慣，致其左右兩側牙齒（尤其是臼齒）的耗損率不同；且此行為更使得牙齒常被染上一些色澤，耗損率高的一側其染上顏色之頻率亦高，而此二項特徵之一致性則顯示其可能較慣於以左側咀嚼。
２．十三行遺址居民除了上述之口腔行為外，可能慣於將牙齒當作工具使用尤其是門、尤齒及前臼齒，致其牙齒上常有一些凶槽狀或傾斜狀之不正常耗損痕跡。推測此可能因在編織、裁縫、甚至製作魚網的過程中用牙齒去拉線或繩所致。
３．十三行遺址居民相當慣於保持長期蹲踞之姿勢，與現生之臺灣南島語族並無二致，且男性似較女性更常保持。
４．十三行遺址居民經常操作一類似划槳之動作，可能真的是在划樂，或是使用掘棒；而男性之操作頻率是女性之兩倍，且以右側佔優勢。
５．十三行遺址居民可能有明顯之兩性分工行為，其中男性以上肢或上半身之行為居多，右手之活動率較一左手高；女性則常有背柱之屈曲、伸展等動作但下半身卻固定不動，且背上常負重物。

（三）十三行遺址居民的健康狀況
根據病理學現象之分析，十三行遺址居民的健康狀況大致如下：
１．在牙齒病理學方面，他們得到齲齒及膿腫的比例非常低，可能因遺址及位於海邊之故。但琺瑯質發育不全之罹病率相當高，顯示其在成長發育之過程中，可能有相當普遍之營養失調現象。牙結石、捲邊與齒槽吸收的發生率亦很高，但在程度上並不嚴重，可能與其過度使用口腔有關，也有可能是牙周病的病癥，但牙周病的罹病率並不是很高。
２．退化性關節炎是十三行遺址居民最常見的關節疾病，整體而言其發生率並不很高，程度上亦不嚴重。其中附屬骨骼關節發生退化性關節炎的順序與一般情形有異，男女亦有別，背椎骨之罹病率則是女性較男性高，推測此現象可能與其有明顯之兩性分工行為有關，致其發病部位有異。
３．十三行遺址居民發生骨折、外傷或骨骼被細菌等感染的機率非常低，都是以個例出現。
４．十三行遺址居民有少數曾患缺鐵之貧血症，但多能渡過貧血時期而存活下來；僅CM5 一例於死亡時仍有非常嚴重之貧血症狀，致其無論在身高、骨架之長度及粗狀程度方面皆較其他女性矮、短而纖細。
５．十三行遺址居民的骨骸上極少發現致死之病因，骨骼病理學例子其實並不多；故推測其致死病因可能屬較短期或急性之病症，致其骨骼在尚未受到感染破壞之前病人即已去世。

 

 

* 鳥瞰台灣史前文化 by tnfsh.tn.edu.tw

 

 

* 鐵器 iron artifact by 陳光祖

Excerpt: 臺灣地區在新石器時代晚期如圓山、植物園、以及卑南等遺址都曾發現鐵器，是從島外輸入的貴重物品。進入金屬器時代，先民已自行冶煉鐵金屬並製作鐵器，但仍有部分鐵金屬來自島外。此時鐵器已取代石器，成為主要的生產工具，但臺灣潮濕多雨，不利於鐵器的保存，加上鐵器損壞後可以重新製作，不必然成為廢料而被丟棄。因此，此一時期許多遺址即使出土很少或未出土鐵器，考古學者仍然推論當時的生產工具主要是鐵器。

臺灣北部沿海地區的十三行文化、東海岸的靜浦文化、以及東南海岸的舊香蘭遺址先民，已掌握煉鐵與鐵器製作技術，前二者採用塊煉法冶煉鐵金屬，並以鍛打方式製作鐵器。舊香蘭的煉鐵技術尚未經研究，但應與靜浦文化的技術相近。十三行文化的煉鐵原料來自遺址鄰近自然力經常補充的海濱鐵砂，靜浦文化的煉鐵原料可能有所不同，但二者採用的鼓風方式應為近代東南亞地區仍在流行的「馬來式」立式鞴piston type bellow。

 

* Health Status and Lifestyle in Early Neolithic and Iron Age Taiwan by M. Pietrusewsky, et al.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

巴布薩族

巴布薩族（Babuza，又稱貓霧捒族、貓霧族）為台灣平埔族原住民，即荷蘭人所稱的虎尾壟（Favorlang），主要分布在大肚溪以南至濁水溪之間的海岸區域，包括彰化平原和台中盆地西南邊緣地帶。

 

聚落

• 貓霧捒社（台中市南屯區）：位於今嶺東科大左側舊名楓樹林一帶，今屬春安里台貿五村。
• 馬芝遴社（彰化縣鹿港鎮）
• 眉裡社（彰化縣溪洲鄉）
• 半線社（彰化縣彰化市）
• 柴坑仔社（彰化縣彰化市）
• 阿束社（彰化縣彰化市）
• 二林社（彰化縣二林鎮）
• 東螺社（彰化縣埤頭鄉）
• 西螺社（雲林縣西螺鎮）

 

 

南屯早期為巴布薩族貓霧束社聚落，其聚落舊址位於今南屯區西南方的春安里（即嶺東科大左側的台貿五村）。明鄭時期曾屯田於南屯，但明鄭亡之後即荒廢。

清治時期，由於貓霧拺居民無力繳交番餉，當時福建副將兼定海總兵張國因曾來台擔任過北路營參將，看上南屯一帶的肥沃平野，遂在康熙49年（1710年）以代繳賦稅為條件，向居民取得土地開墾權，開墾包括南屯街區一帶的荒野，是今南屯街區墾闢的開始，其後並由台灣總兵藍廷珍續墾，南屯街區逐漸繁榮。

道光年間原地主貓霧拺社遷至埔里，加上現街區位於半線（今彰化市）到葫蘆墩（今豐原區）路途之中點，使該地區漸成為南屯一帶的中心，因當時此地原有許多製造農具的打鐵店，其中又以犁頭最為出名，因而地名遂改為犁頭店，稱為犁頭店街。1920年行政區劃改制，本區改為南屯庄，轄屬台中州大屯郡；第二次世界大戰後，中華民國接收日本台灣總督府所轄之區域，將此區改為台中縣南屯鄉，1947年併入台中市改為南屯區迄今。

 

彰化市早期為台灣原住民平埔族群巴布薩族的活動區域，分屬半線社、柴坑仔社及阿束社，古地名「半線」係採自平埔族「半線社」的語音翻譯。荷西時期，此地隸屬瓦布蘭行政區，受荷蘭東印度公司福爾摩沙北部評議會管轄。到了明鄭時期（1661年），鄭成功在台實施郡縣制，當時此地隸屬天興縣。1666年，鄭氏部將劉國軒率兵進駐，行屯田制，以此地作為鎮壓平埔族斗尾龍岸社（今大甲溪北）及沙轆社（今台中縣沙鹿鎮）武力抗爭的根據地，為漢人移民打下開墾基礎。1683年，施琅攻台，明正朔亡，台灣進入清領時期，全台設一府三縣，此地隸屬諸羅縣管轄。

漢人較具規模的屯墾始於1684年之後，相繼有福建人施世榜、吳洛、台南人楊志申等，大事招徠閩粵移民，以此地為中心向四周墾荒鑿圳，原有的平埔族部落遂逐漸被漢人移民所融合。十年後（1694年），高拱乾纂修的《臺灣府志》已經載有彰化地區第一個漢人聚落「半線庄」，隨著水利灌溉系統的完成，入墾人口陸續增加，到了1717年，在陳夢林纂修的《諸羅縣志》裡加列半線庄內有一「半線街」，分東南西北四條街道，說明此地已經開始具有商業機能

 

西螺鎮名稱來源自台灣原住民巴布薩族Sailei社之社址，漳州人以其鄉音而稱之為「西螺社」，荷蘭人則稱之為「Sorean」。古時又有稱之為「螺陽」者，係開拓者為追思故土福建省惠安縣螺陽鎮之故；或是古時文人雅士所用之雅稱。

西螺最早的居民為平埔族的巴布薩族人，荷蘭時代獎勵漢人移駐開墾，漢人乃漸漸增多。清初時，西螺為台灣墾殖的重鎮，最初稱為「西螺堡」，隸屬彰化縣，光緒11年（1887年）台灣建省後，增設雲林縣，西螺始劃歸雲林

* 尋找彰化平原最後的東螺社人 by 張素玢

* 貓霧栜井（番子井）

* 鹿港一帶,原是平埔族巴布薩族[馬芝遴社]的聚落所在

* 荷據時代華武壠社消失的原因--以遷徙為中心 by 陳欽育

* 重構Favorlang民族誌 by 林 昌華

* 17 世紀臺灣Forvorlang 語字典（Woord-boek der Favorlangsche taal）：編纂過程初探 by 吳國聖

* 荷蘭統治之下的台灣教會語言學: 荷蘭語言政策與原住民識字能力的引進（1624-1662） by 賀安娟（Ann Heylen）

 

彰化縣福興鄉巴布薩族馬芝遴社平埔族人現況調查報告 by 陳俊傑

 

 

* 虎尾壠 by 詹素娟

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

大肚王國

大肚王國，為16世紀中期臺灣原住民巴布拉族與巴布薩族、巴則海族和一部份洪雅族所成立的「跨族群準王國」。領域範圍主要在今天的台中縣，以及彰化縣和南投縣的一部分，依據蘇格蘭人David Wright的記載，大肚王國最強盛的時候曾統治27座村落，只是後來有10座村落獨立

大肚王稱呼: 大肚王，漢人稱為Quataong，翁佳音推測可能係閩南語Hoan-á-ong（番仔王）的轉訛。荷語稱其為Keizer van Middag，台灣原住民則稱之為Lelien，意為白晝之王或太陽王。大肚番王的首領一直以 Camachat 為名，而干仔轄（Camachat; 巴布拉語）也是大肚番王所轄村社共同使用的平埔部族語言名稱，在清朝的土地調查文書中也有干仔轄、干馬轄、干仔旱等由此音譯而來的稱呼。

荷蘭時期: 荷蘭東印度公司於1624年起殖民台灣，到了1642年征服北台灣後，荷蘭人的目標轉為征服西部平原的原住民，以連通台灣南北的道路。荷蘭人從中國海盜得到情報，在中部馬芝遴地區（彰化縣福興鄉一帶與淡水鎮之間）有22個村社，其中大甲溪以南的18個村社是由一位叫柯大王（Quata Ong）的領袖所統轄。

1644年，荷蘭上尉Piter Boon率兵遠征北台灣未臣服的原住民，戰勝後南下打通陸路，因為遭遇拍瀑拉族的強烈反擊而未成功。翌年Piter Boon再度進攻，摧毀了13座反荷村落，Quata Ong只得接受范布鍊（Simon van Breen）牧師的協調。

1645年4月荷蘭人召開南部的地方會議，Quata Ong跟荷蘭東印度公司訂約，表示臣服，不過直到1662年荷蘭人離開臺灣為止，大肚王國都維持半獨立狀態。大肚王國不肯接受基督教，只讓歐洲人通過領土而不准他們定居，也無荷語的翻譯員。

明鄭時期: 大肚王國雖對荷印公司友善，但從未歸順明鄭王朝。1661年鄭成功領兵渡海，擊敗荷印公司軍隊，取得臺灣統治權。由於實施「兵農合一」政策，派遣鄭軍分赴各地屯墾，侵害到原住民族的活動空間，導致明鄭王朝和大肚王國數次武裝衝突。

事實上，鄭氏對原住民的剝削程度，較荷蘭人更加嚴苛激烈，驅使奴役、虐待刻薄的情況時有所聞，鎮壓「番變」的手段也十分殘酷，使原住民大為反感，引起原住民的反抗。

其中1670年大肚王國轄下的沙轆社起兵抵抗，遭明鄭將領劉國軒強力鎮壓，屠殺至僅剩六人，幾乎滅族。

在一六七○年的沙轆之役中，鄭軍部將劉國軒從南台灣到中部撫番，於大肚溪口附近上岸。當地的拍瀑拉族社番不肯就撫，於是劉國軒趁社番不備之際揮兵猛攻，社番被殺者眾，餘者紛紛逃往它處。鄰近之大肚與水裡社番目睹鄭軍之殘酷，遂逃之一空。黃叔璥〈番俗六考〉記載：「沙轆番原有數百人，為最盛；後為劉國軒殺戮殆盡，只餘六人，潛匿海口」。

清領時期: 1722年（康熙六十一年），出任巡臺御史的黃叔璥在他的《臺海使槎錄》一書中，有這樣的記載：「大肚山形，遠望如百雉高城，昔有番長名大眉。」雖然寥寥數語，卻說明17世紀的臺灣中部確實有一個「超部落」的王國。

1731年（雍正九年），清廷官吏對原住民指派勞役過多，引起原住民群起反抗，發生大甲西社番亂（大甲西社抗清事件），翌年被鎮壓下來，各族人陸續逃離原居地，遷往埔里（南投縣北部）一帶，大肚王國亦終告瓦解。

* 台灣第一個本土政權：大肚王國 by 郭正典

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

平埔族群

平埔族群母親和小孩

平埔族群是對居住在台灣平野地區的許多南島語系原住民族群的泛稱。這些族群往昔被日本人及清朝人蔑稱以「平埔番」、「熟番」，等名。至國民政府時代多已喪失族群意識，且不被官方認定為原住民族；後來台灣族群研究興起，這些平地原住民族群的歷史才開始受到主流社會的關注，學術界、文化界開始加以調查、研究，社會大眾也改以較中性的「平埔族群」一詞加以指稱，但是有部份的資料仍以平埔族稱之，因為「平埔族群」並非單一民族，事實上應該是「平埔族群」才正確。

「平埔」兩個字，就字面的意思而言，就是「平地」的意思；「族群」則是指稱某一特定的人群。就此而言，「平埔族群」是用來指稱「居住在平地的人群」的簡易稱呼。

400年前，早在中國大陸漢人移民前往台灣拓墾、定居之前，台灣西海岸的平原地帶，從北部的宜蘭、基隆一直到恆春，就已經有許多不同文化、不同語言、不同部落認同的人群在居住著。這些比漢族更早居住在台灣平原地帶的不同人群，由於和漢群的語言、文化都不相同，因此在早期的臺灣歷史文獻中常被稱為「番」。從「番」的字形、字意來看，「番」是「釆」與「田」所組成的，是用來指稱以某種方式耕作的人，是一種生活方式。但是，在漢文化為中心的眼光下，「番」就含有歧視的意味。

平埔番或平埔熟番字眼出現在志書中，主要是為了和生番與高山番區別。平埔熟番的稱呼雖然在18世紀中期以後就出現在清朝的文獻中，但主要還是在19世紀中期以後的文獻出現得比較多。例如，《噶瑪蘭廳志》（1851）就有「平埔番」一詞。簡單地說，18世紀下半葉在文獻中出現的「平埔番」、「平埔熟番」，是指居住在屏東平原、宜蘭平原、台東平地與恆春平野的土著族群。事實上，我們現在所謂的「平埔族群」隱含了兩個意涵：「平埔」與「熟番」。「平埔」一詞較流行於民間；而「熟番」則是較官方的用語。

 

分類

雖然自有人類以來，不同的人群之間就對彼此的關係有某種程度的「分類系統」。但是，人類開始以「族」或「民族」來區分人群則是相當晚近的事，特別是在100多年前殖民主義與帝國主義開始興盛的時候。台灣的所謂「族群分類」也正是在這樣的時代背景下產生的。台灣日治時期統治台灣的日本殖民帝國，基於統治的理由，對台灣的人群與土地進行全盤的調查與瞭解，同時也展開了台灣族群的分類工作(中央研究院平埔文化資訊網 nd, b)。

起初，日本學者認為居住在平原地區的原住民大多已經漢化，只是以「平埔族群」或「平埔番」一詞概括之，而將人群分類的重點放在「高山族」上。後來，日本學者對文化漸行消失的平地原住民有了較多的認識之後，才瞭解到所謂的「平埔族群」，實際上包含多個不同語言、不同文化的民族。然而，在過去90多年來，學者對平埔族的分類相當不一致，有的分為7族14支、也有分為8族、9族、10族、12族等(中央研究院平埔文化資訊網 nd, b)。

根據今日學術界的研究成果，所謂「平埔族」、「高山族」的分界，並不是天然的民族界線，而是在十七世紀以後的歷史過程中，因各族生活領域和漢化程度不同而產生的斷裂線。換句話說，所謂「平埔族群」彼此之間的文化差異，可能大於某「平埔族」與某「高山族」之間的差異——某些「平埔族群」和某些「高山族群」且可能本來是同一個族群。

日治時期學者的分類

有關平埔族群的分類，在日治時期以前，均缺乏有系統的分類。荷蘭時期僅記錄了先住民的社名，並依其分佈的地區，劃分成幾個區域群。清朝黃叔璥在《番俗六考》中，也是依照地理分佈而將原住民分為13個部落群。

直到日據時代，伊能嘉矩、粟野傳之丞的《臺灣番人事情》(1900)一書中才對平埔族群加以有系統的分類，其後伊能嘉矩又著《臺灣番政志》(1904)，將平埔族的分類加以修正，而分平埔族為：凱達格蘭族(Ketagalan)、噶瑪蘭族(Kavarawan)、道卡斯族(Taokas)、拍宰海族(Pazzehe)、拍暴拉族(Vupuran)、巴布薩族(Poavosa)、阿立昆族(Arikun)、羅亞族(Lloa)、西拉雅族(Siraiya)、以及馬卡道族(Makattao)等10族。

以伊能嘉矩的這個分類系統當作主要的參考架構，移川子之藏、小川尚義、馬淵東一等人也都提出過對平埔族群不同的分類方式(中央研究院平埔文化資訊網 nd, b)。其中主要的爭議有幾個：

(1). 阿立昆(Arikun)及羅亞(Lloa)這兩族到底應不應該被歸為同一族(後來的學者比較傾向於將這兩族歸為一族，稱之為洪雅(Hoanya))；

(2). 凱達格蘭(Ketagalan)是否是同質性的一個族群，還是應該再繼續做細分；

(3). 西拉雅族(Siraiya)和馬卡道族(Makattao)應該是不同族或者是同一族；

(4). 移川子之藏在伊能嘉矩的架構下新加入的邵(Sao)族，應該是平埔族還是高山族。

戰後學者的分類

近年來，學者對於平埔族群的分類，又有新的看法。日本語言學者土田滋在1985年的分類中(見Tsuchida 1985)，將平埔族群分為12族：噶瑪蘭(Kavalan)、馬賽（Basay）、凱達格蘭（Ketagalan）、龜崙(Kulon)、道卡斯（Taokas）、拍宰海（Pazeh）、拍瀑拉（Papora）、巴布薩（Babuza）、洪雅（Hoanya）、西拉雅（Siraya）、馬卡道族（Makattao）以及大武壟(Taivoan)。

台灣語言學者李壬癸則有不同的看法，在1996年〈台灣平埔族群的種類及其相互關係分類〉一文中，提出了7族14支的看法：邵族(Thao)、噶瑪蘭(Kavalan)、凱達格蘭（Ketagalan）【下分：巴賽（Basay）、雷朗（Luilang）、多囉美遠（Trobian）等三支】、巴布蘭（Baburan）【下分：道卡斯（Taokas）、巴布拉（Papora）、貓霧捒（Babuza）、費佛朗(Favoran)等四支】、巴則海（Pazeh）、洪雅（Hoanya）、西拉雅（Siraya）【下分西拉雅（Siraya）、馬卡道族（Makattao）以及四社熟番(Taivoan)等三支】。

主要族群

• 噶瑪蘭族（Kavalan）
• 凱達格蘭族（Ketagalan）
• 道卡斯族（Taokas）
• 巴布拉族（Papora）
• 貓霧捒族（Babuza）
• 巴則海族（Pazeh）
• 和安雅族（Hoanya）
• 西拉雅族（Siraya)

 

源頭

據現代研究資料分析，平埔族群與台灣原住民相同，文化來源均來自屬東南亞南島語系。該語系民族分佈地點於整個太平洋與印度洋一帶，最遠甚至可溯及距離台灣數千公里遠之復活島及馬達加斯加。根據地點分布，台灣平埔族群是南島語系最北的分佈族群。俱信平埔族群早於新石器時代即發源或登陸台灣，是屬於海洋民族之一。

 

平埔族群的近況

由於歷經與漢族數百年來的交流，平埔族群的風俗習慣、語言逐漸凋零散佚。目前在學者與平埔族群後裔的努力下，逐漸找回部分的習俗及語言。其中噶瑪蘭族已獲得中華民國政府的官方承認，成為台灣原住民族之一。

平埔原住民之凱達格蘭族、巴則海族、西拉雅族、和安雅族、巴布拉族、道卡斯族等族群已發起平埔族正名運動，要求官方承認平埔族的原住民身分。

 

 

平埔族十大族簡表

族名	支族(或著名部落)	生存範圍
A: 凱 達 格 蘭 族 (Ketagalan)	A1:Basai巴(馬)賽支族	分佈於基隆、金山、三貂角、貢寮、東北角一帶。
	A2:Trobiawan 哆囉里(美)遠支族	今宜蘭縣壯圍鄉(舊名社頭)一帶。
	A3:Luilang雷朗支族	台北盆地及其附近新店板橋桃園南崁，有雷裡、秀朗等社
B: 噶瑪蘭族 ( 蛤仔難)(卡瓦蘭) (Kavalan)	有三十六大社:棋立丹社、馬麟社、歪仔歪社、打馬煙社、里荖社、加禮宛社等。	以宜蘭平原為核心，蘭陽溪為隔，溪北[西勢番]十九社，溪南[東勢番]十七社。
C:道卡斯族 (打卡死) (Taokas)	大甲西社、貓裡社、苑裡社、後壟社、吞霄社、竹塹社等十六社。	台中縣大甲鎮、苗栗縣沿海、新竹海岸平原。[大甲]即道卡斯族[大甲西]社老家，[通霄]是[吞霄]社的老家。
D:巴則海族(帕則赫) (拍宰海) (Pazeh)	烏牛欄社、葫蘆墩社、岸里社等共十六社	台中盆地、葫蘆墩(豐原)、東勢一帶為核心。北抵大甲溪岸,南到潭子鄉,西至大肚山一帶。
E:巴布拉族 (帕瀑拉) (爬坡拉) (巴瀑拉) (Papora)	大肚社、沙轆社、牛罵社(今清水鎮，舊名牛罵頭)、水裡社等。	台中大甲溪(清水鎮)以南，大肚溪以北，大肚台地以西,今台中縣海岸地區。
F: 貓霧束(束,音:薩)族 (巴布薩) (Babuza)	二林社、貓霧 束社(台中市南屯區)、西螺社、東螺社、半線社(彰化市)、馬芝遴社等。	台中市與彰化縣之海岸區域，約大肚溪以南、濁水溪以北之地。包括彰化平原大部分,台中盆地一部分。
G:洪雅族 (洪安雅) (和安雅) (Hoanya)	G1:Lloa嘍嘍仔支族(魯羅阿支族)	分布於今嘉義、雲林縣境，有諸羅山社、斗六門社、他里霧社(斗南鎮)、貓兒干社(崙背鄉豐榮村)等。
	G2:Arikun阿里昆支族	南投縣境及彰化縣東境，有南投社、北投社等。
H:邵族 (水沙連) (Thao)	南投縣水里、魚池鄉,日月潭一帶。	在今之日月潭一帶。1910年日本學者鳥居龍藏把邵族改列為高山族，此前，邵族被歸為平埔族。但今天台灣官方欽定的山胞九族，卻不包括邵族在內。邵族又歸於平埔族。人口僅剩三四百人。
I:西拉雅族 (Siraya)	I1:Siraya西拉雅支族	分佈在台南平原上，有赤崁社、台窩灣社(安平區)、蕭壟社(佳里鎮)、 焦吧 年社(原新化鎮、後遷至玉井鄉)、麻豆社、新港社(新市鄉)、學甲社等。
	I2:Taivoran 大武壟支族(四社熟番)	今台南縣善化鎮、玉井、大內鄉一帶，屬曾文溪流域;有頭社、霄里社、芒仔芒社、加拔社等。
	I3:Makato馬卡道支族	分佈在屏東平原至恆春一帶，有阿猴社(屏東市)、上淡水社、下淡水社、放索社、搭樓社(里港鄉)等。
J:猴猴族(Qauqaut)	猴猴田寮社、高高社	今宜蘭縣蘇澳鎮龍德里,原居住於南方澳和猴猴溪流域,後遷至東勢及利澤簡,今已全族漢化消失滅絕。

台灣的地名、山名絕大多數都與原住民有關。

「有唐山公,無唐山媽」,平埔族也是台灣人的祖先,我們千萬不要「背祖忘宗」。

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Map of Taiwanese Aboriginal Tribes