TaiwanDNA.com

Origins and Diversity of the Taiwanese People

TaiwanDNA.com Homepage

 

嘉義市洪雅文化協會

 

 

* 台灣平埔族沒落初探－以嘉義地區洪雅族為例

* 歷史上的人與環境

* 我的祖先我的名

* 荷蘭時期原住民分佈研究回顧 - 問題與解決的芻議 by 翁佳音

* 找尋失落的世界：平埔社會變遷與隱而再現的族群認同

* 隱藏在現今社會的平埔洪雅族部落斗六門社

* 濁水溪以南 洪雅最嗆 by 鄭榮文

 

HOANYA

Excerpts from Wikipedia.org

The Hoanya (洪雅族 or 和安雅族) are a Taiwanese aboriginal people who live primarily in Changhua county, Chiayi city, Nantou county, and near Tainan City.

 

Chiayi City (sometimes romanized as Jiayi) (嘉義市) is a city located in the plains of southwestern Taiwan. It is surrounded by Chiayi County and is currently governed as a provincial city of Taiwan Province, Republic of China. Formerly called Kagee during the late Qing Dynasty and Kagi during the Japanese era, its historical name is Tirosen.

First inhabited by the Hoanya aborigines, the region was named Tirosen. With the arrival of Han Chinese in southwestern Taiwan, the name Tirosen evolved to become Chu-lô-san (諸羅山) in the Holo (Taiwanese) language. Eventually, Chu-lô-san was shortened to simply Chu-lô. Because of the choice of the characters, it has been mistakenly suggested that the origin of the name Chu-lô-san or Chu-lô came from the expression "mountains surrounding the east." "Peach City" is another name for Chiayi City due to its peach-shaped territory in ancient times. The tip of the peach is around current Central Fountain and was called "Peach-tip" by citizens.

 

Nantou County (南投縣) is the second largest county of Taiwan. It is also the only county which does not share a border with the ocean. Its name derives from the Hoanya Taiwanese aboriginal word Ramtau.

Its mountainous area makes it a tourist destination; Sun Moon Lake is located in this county. Other well known areas of the county are Hehuanshan and Xitou. Notable cities in Nantou: Puli.

Nantou county butterfly is: Broad-tailed swallowtail butterfly (Agehana maraho)

Agehana maraho

Butterflies in Taiwan: At least 377 species of butterfly have been recorded in Taiwan, with some reports putting the number at over 400. Of these, 56 species are endemic to the island.

* 寬尾鳳蝶復育計畫 by 徐堉峰

 

 

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)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

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.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

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.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

George Leslie Mackay

George Leslie Mackay (馬偕 or 偕叡理; March 21, 1844 – June 2, 1901) was the first Presbyterian missionary to northern Formosa (Taiwan). He served with the Canadian Presbyterian Mission. Mackay is among the best known Westerners to have lived in Taiwan.

Mission to Formosa: In 1871 Mackay became the first foreign missionary to be commissioned by the Canada Presbyterian Church (predecessor of both the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the United Church of Canada), arriving in Taiwan on New Year's Eve, 31 December 1871.

After consulting with Dr. James Laidlaw Maxwell Sr., a medical doctor serving as a Presbyterian Church of England missionary to southern Formosa (1865), Mackay arrived at Tamsui, northern Formosa in 1872, which remained his home until his death in 1901. Starting with an itinerant dentistry practice amongst the lowland aborigines, he later established churches, schools and a hospital practicing Western biomedicine. He learned to speak the vernacular Taiwanese fluently, and married Tiuⁿ Chhang-miâ (張聰明; known as "Minnie" in the West), a Taiwanese woman.

He was described by a contemporary as

...a little man, firm and active, of few words, unflinching courage, and one whose sound common sense is equalled only by his earnest devotion to the Master. [...] During the first year of his stay at Tamsui, he began an educational and evangelistic training movement among the young men who came about him, and this has been greatly blessed throughout that northern part of the Island.

The churches he planted later became the Northern Synod of the present Presbyterian Church in Taiwan. In 1896, after the establishment of Japanese colonial rule of Taiwan, Mackay met with the Japanese Governor-General of Formosa, Maresuke Nogi.

Some families in Taiwan today, particularly of lowland-aboriginal Kavalan ancestry, trace their surname '偕' ('Kai' or 'Kay') to their family's conversion to Christianity by Mackay.

Legacy: Mackay's 1896 book From Far Formosa is considered an important early missionary ethnography of Taiwan and an important contribution to the anthropological understanding of the culture and customs of the people of Taiwan during that period. Mackay himself was as fascinated by the cultures and habitat he found as he was disapproving of native practices he viewed as idolatry. He spoke approvingly of the destruction of art and other artefacts previously regarded as sacred by his newly Christian converts. Of his rustic apartment in an aboriginal village, Mackay wrote: "To that place the cast-off machinery of idolatry was brought, and more than once I dried my clothes before fires made of idolatrous paper, idols, and ancestral tablets. Three men were employed to carry other paraphernalia of idol-worship to the museum in Tanshui" (Mackay, 1896:219). Mackay was otherwise an enthusiastic collector of cultural artefacts and specimens of local flora and fauna. Many items collected by him are today preserved at the ethnology department of the Royal Ontario Museum (Ontario, Canada) and the Aletheia University Museum (Tamsui, Taiwan).

From Far Formosa: The Island, Its People and Missions by George L. Mackay (e-book)

 

 

 

 

* 台灣醫療四百年 by 經典雜誌

(Medical works among the Siraya, Pazeh, and Hoanya aborigines)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Reverend Chun-Ming Kao

Reverend Dr Chun-Ming Kao

The Reverend Dr Chun-Ming Kao (高俊明, born Tainan, 1929-06-06) is a minister of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan (PCT). He graduated from Tainan Theological College and Seminary, and then studied at Selly Oak Colleges in England. He was the General Secretary of the PCT from 1970 to 1989, during which period he became a political prisoner for assisting participants in the Kaohsiung Incident (1979), in particular Shih Ming-teh. For this he was sentenced for 7 years in prison, and served his sentence from 1980 to 1984. While he was in prison, his wife Ruth Kao organized groups to help him and raised awareness in the worldwide Church about the human rights situation in Taiwan. After Chen Shui-bian was elected President in 2000, Chun-Ming Kao was appointed a Senior Advisor to the Office of the President. In 2006 he supported the then-president Chen against his former comrade Shih, who led a movement for a forced resignation of Chen called ‘Million Voices Against Corruption, President Chen Must Go’.

 

* 14族擁抱西拉雅族　回歸原民大家庭

Excerpt: 眾所景仰的台灣基督長老教會總會高俊明牧師是平埔洪雅族後裔、排灣族的女婿，高俊明牧師表示，台灣原住民是台灣的主人也是台灣的國寶，考古學家已證實台灣原住民歷史超過六、七千年，台灣的原住民最有資格宣稱台灣是新而獨立的國家，如今擁抱西拉雅是神的恩典、也是大家的努力。前原民會主委尤哈尼也表示，西拉雅及平埔族就是台灣的原住民，這是任何人都不能否定的，也期盼西拉雅族有朝一日能夠很有尊嚴回歸原住民族。

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

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.

 

 

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」。

 

* 從醫學資料看臺灣的族群融合 by 陳順勝

6,000年前 南島語族遷移來臺灣發展族群：泰雅族、鄒族、賽夏、巴則海、洪雅族 　

5,000年前 排灣族群：排灣、卑南、魯凱族群遺址 (卑南遺址) 　

2,000年前 凱達格蘭族遷回臺灣

1,500年前 阿美族在靜浦─靜浦文化，鐵器時代 　

1,000年前 猴猴族遷回臺灣或由泰雅族分出(？) 　　

500年前 雅美族由菲律賓巴丹島移居蘭嶼

 

* 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.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

洪雅族

和安雅族（Hoanya），又名洪雅族，為台灣平埔族原住民，分布於彰化、雲林、嘉義、南投到台南一帶附近。本族包括羅亞（Lloa）、阿立昆（Arikun）二支族。

聚落

• 萬斗六社（台中縣霧峰鄉）
• 大武郡社（彰化縣社頭鄉）。
• 貓羅社（彰化縣芬園鄉）
• 大突社（彰化縣溪湖鎮）
• 北投社（南投縣草屯鎮）
• 南投社（南投縣南投市）
• 斗六門社（雲林縣斗六市）
• 他里霧社（雲林縣斗南鎮）
• 貓兒干社（雲林縣崙背鄉）
• （貓兒干）南社（雲林縣崙背鄉）
• 打貓社（嘉義縣民雄鄉）
• 諸羅山社（嘉義市）

現今嘉義市社內里，舊名番社內，是往昔諸羅山社舊址。中正公園旁的福社宮，除祭祀土地公外，另奉祀一尊「番王爺」神祇，於農曆2月29日舉行誕辰祭典，為洪雅族人崇敬祖靈的漢化遺風。

• 哆囉嘓社（台南縣東山鄉）

 

 

南投市位於台灣南投縣西北部，為南投縣縣治所在地。

南投之地名譯自平埔洪雅族南投社社名，該社社名，初見於康熙三十四年（1695年） 修之台灣府志。其社名係與同族阿里坤支族之北投社對稱之，因在北投社之南。諸羅縣志所載：「東為南投山，內社二，溪南（貓羅溪）為南投，溪北為北投（今屬草屯鎮）。」

 

 

民雄鄉舊稱「打貓」，原為平埔族洪雅族「打貓社」的所在，打貓則是漢人取閩南語近音(Ta-miao)翻譯而來。
1920年台灣地方改制，日本官方認為「打貓」地名不雅，故取日語近音譯為「民雄」（日語中「民雄」兩字的發音為「tami-o」）

 

 

日治時期嘉義市馬路(現中正路)/

嘉義市是位於台灣西南部的一個市，地處嘉南平原北端，全境被嘉義縣環繞。古名「諸羅山」，係源自平埔族原住民洪雅族社名之譯音，亦名桃城，以其古城形如桃而名。全境除東部屬丘陵地帶外，其餘為平原，地勢由東向西緩降，地形平坦廣闊。

嘉義市古名「諸羅山」，源自平埔族原住民洪雅族社名之譯音，荷蘭人稱之為「Tirosen」社。原譯者選字時，考量東方諸山羅列，故以此稱之。亦名桃城，因清代興築之城池形如桃而名，桃之尾尖，在今中央七彩噴水池一帶，市民慣稱桃仔尾。

諸羅山在古時，為中國大陸大規模移民台灣之據點之一。明天啟元年（1621年），原籍福建漳州的海盜顏思齊引率移民自笨港登陸，據以開墾拓荒。天啟四年（1624年）荷蘭人占據台灣，初期統治今之安平與台南市區一帶，不久即安撫了諸羅山一帶的平埔族，並對此地加以經營，嘉義市內風景幽美的紅毛埤（今之蘭潭水庫），即是當時荷蘭人所鑿。

明永曆15年（1661年），鄭成功來台驅逐荷蘭人，建立台灣首度的漢人政權，設一府二縣，即承天府與天興、萬年兩縣，以新港溪（今之鹽水溪）為二縣分界，嘉義隸屬天興縣。清康熙22年（1683年），清帝國領有台灣，康熙23年設台灣府統三縣，即分明鄭時代的萬年縣為台灣、鳳山兩縣，改天興縣為諸羅縣，縣署設於佳里興（今之台南縣佳里鎮），康熙43年（1704年），縣治自佳里興遷移諸羅山，即今嘉義市，以木柵為城。雍正時，知縣孫魯改建土城堡，雍正5年（1727年），知縣劉良壁重建門樓，砌水洞，各置砲座，並命四門為：東曰「襟山」，西曰「帶海」，南曰「崇陽」，北曰「拱辰」，雍正12年，知縣陸鴻於土城外植刺竹護城益固。乾隆51年（1786年），林爽文反清之役，圍攻諸羅城十月，城內人民協助清軍有功，清國乃本「嘉其死守城池之忠義」之旨，翌年11月初三日下詔，易稱「諸羅」為「嘉義」，光緒11年（1885年），台灣奉准正式建省，十三年，分全台為三府一直隸州十一縣三廳，嘉義縣屬於台灣府，縣治仍設於嘉義。

1895年，清日甲午戰役，清帝國與日本訂立馬關條約，將台灣割給日本，日本治台後，設總督府統治全台，正式施政。自此至二戰結束為止，其間名稱多次變更。明治39年（1906年）嘉義大地震，城垣全毀，僅存東門。是年，日本當局乘機制定都市計畫並實施市區改名，重建後之嘉義市，為台灣全島當時最現代化街市，工商業及交通開始發展，明治40年建設通阿里山之鐵道（即阿里山森林鐵路）。大正9年（1920年）是年第八次改革隸台南州嘉義郡之下，開始實施地方自治，嘉義正式成為自治團體的嘉義街，昭和5年（1930年）嘉義街改陞為「市」，嘉義市自此正式誕生。

1945年，台灣改歸中華民國，台南州轄嘉義市合併水上鄉與太保鄉升格為省轄市，直隸台灣省政府；民國39年（1950年）調整行政區域，全台劃分為十六縣五省轄市一管理局；1950年8月，原嘉義市轄區改設新東鎮、新西鎮、新南鎮、新北鎮、水上鄉與太保鄉，1951年11月撤銷新東、新南、新西、新北四鎮建制合併成立嘉義市公所，成為嘉義縣唯一的縣轄市。30多年來各項經費短絀，影響建設，民國71年（1982年）7月1日，在地方人士多年奔走下，再恢復改制為省轄市。

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

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：

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

 

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。

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Map of Taiwanese Aboriginal Tribes