TaiwanDNA.com

Origins and Diversity of the Taiwanese People

TaiwanDNA.com Homepage

Pazeh

 

巴宰族Ayan之歌

 

 

* 平埔後裔的族群認同—以大社巴宰族為例  by 黃 美 雯

* 巴則海族

 

 

 

PAZEH

Excerpts from Wikipedia.org

The Pazeh (or Pazih; 巴則海族 or 巴宰族) people, including the Kaxabu, are the descendants of the Tsouic Pazeh speaking indigenous people from the central Taiwanese areas of Taichung and Miaoli. Due to the processes of acculturation and cultural assimilation, the majority of Taiwanese who identify themselves as Pazeh reside in the Ai-lan district in the central city of Puli, Nantou.

 

Current Status: The current Pazih community is located around the Ai-lan (愛蘭) Taiwanese Presbyterian Church, which provides support for the Pazeh cultural revival and political mobilization. The Ai-lan Pazih are currently petitioning Taiwan's government for official status as a recognized tribe of Taiwanese Aborigines.

 

Language: Pazeh (Pazih) is the language of the Pazeh, a tribe of indigenous people on Taiwan. It is a Formosan language of the Austronesian languages language family. As there is only one speaker, the language is moribund.

 

台灣開拓史上的功臣 - 平埔巴宰族滄桑史 by 潘大和

 

巴宰族民族誌調查 by 原住民族委員會

 

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

 

Pan Jin-yu (潘金玉, July 21, 1914 - October 24, 2010) was the last remaining speaker of the Pazeh language of Taiwan. She was born the fifth of six children in 1914 to Kaxabu-speaking parents in Puli. Later, she was adopted by parents who were Pazeh speakers living in Auran village (Taiwanese: Ailan), which is now part of Puli township. She was said to be fully fluent in the language, despite being the only remaining speaker. However, Taiwanese Hokkien was the living language she spoke generally. She taught Pazeh classes to about 200 regular students in Puli and there were also classes with fewer students in Miaoli and Taichung.

 

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)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Images from Digital Archives

岸裡社的女子服裝

 

埔里烏牛欄考古現場的巴則海老嫗

 

烏牛欄巴則海男士潘金山

 

烏牛欄巴則海族

___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

* 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

 

* More Genetic Sharing among the Population of Taiwan than Expected: A plain tribes (Pinpu) perspective by Marie Lin, et al.

Conclusion: Autosomal recombining HLA and non-recombining haploid systems (mtDNA and NRY) of Taiwan present-day populations revealed that plain tribes shared their genes with TwA, ISEA and CSEA, and appear more distant from CA.

Using ancient bone remains from Taiwan plain tribe burial sites, and studying non-recombining maternal mtDNA system, it was shown that the CSEA and CA genetic heritage of the Taiwan plain tribes was not only acquired during the past 400 years from people of the southeast coast of China (current belief), but may have been acquired as far back as 4000 years ago from ancient prehistoric sailing agriculturist migrants (the broad genetic structure in those days was similar to that seen in CSEA today). Older bone remains will be needed to demonstrate older migration, but most importantly these preliminary results will need further analysis in the future. Caution will have to be taken as it is usual to label haplogroups that are not seen among TwA as genetic markers of recent continental origin, here, on the contrary, our results show that the presence of these same haplogroups have arrived much earlier and may actually help to reconstruct the genetic make up of descendants of prehistoric migrants from continental Asia a few thousand years ago.

The Mitochondrial DNA analysis revealed two genetic "Aboriginalities" within the plain tribes, one already well defined set of haplogroups shared with mountain tribe Aborigines (TwA) (and ISEA), and the other set of haplogroups shared between plain tribes Aborigines and CSEA. The arrival time of the latter set of haplogroups could be traced back to several thousand years prior the commonly accepted period of 400 years.

We showed that the genetic make up of the plain tribes today, most likely, contains an older Taiwan heritage than previously thought. This study also support our previous findings describing that 95% of Siraya carried at least one gene of TwA origin (or gene also seen in TwA and ISEA), and Pazeh 89%. Finally, when confirmed these resulted, may have strong implication in drawing new hypothesis about the historical demography of present day Taiwanese.

 

 

Mitochondrial DNA (Neighbor Joining Phylogram)

 

Frequency Distribution of E2a Haplogroup (supported by diversity distribution)

(Population movement between Philippines and Taiwan plain tribes- E2a is only seen in these two populations)

 

Haplogroup E is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup. It is a subgroup of Haplogroup M. Haplogroup E has a southern Asia distribution. Until now it has been detected in the Malay peninsula populations and in the Sabah of Borneo; and it is also present in coastal Papua New Guinea as well as in Taiwan, in the Philippines, and in some Pacific islands such as Guam.

Tree: This phylogenetic tree of haplogroup E subclades is based on the paper by Mannis van Oven and Manfred Kayser Updated comprehensive phylogenetic tree of global human mitochondrial DNA variation and subsequent published research.

• E
  • E1
    • E1a
      • E1a1
        • E1a1a
          • E1a1a1
      • E1a2
    • E1b
      • E1b1
  • E2
    • E2a
    • E2b
      • E2b1
      • E2b2

 

* Genetic Affinities Between the Yami Tribe People of Orchid Island and the Philippine Islanders of the Batanes Archipelago by Jun-Hun Loo, et al.

Phylogenetic Tree of Populations of Taiwan, ISEA and MSEA Using mtDNA Haplogroup Frequencies (Fst distances)

 

* Recent Anthropological Genetic Study of Taiwan Indigenous Populations by Shu-Juo Chen, et al.

Y-chromosome Haplotype Frequency Distribution in Asian and Oceanic Populations

Populations	N	H1	H2	H3	H4	H5	H6	H7	H8	H9	H10	H11	H12	H14	H16	H17
Bunun	17					5.9				17.6	58.8		17.6
Atayal	22						4.5			95.5
Yami	7							14.3		71.4	14.3
Paiwan	22								9.1	63.6	27.3
Ami	19							31.6	5.3	36.8	26.3
Puyuma	11							9.1		72.7	9.1			9.1
Tsou	18							5.6		88.9	5.6
Rukai	11									81.8	18.2
Saisiat	11							27.3		45.5	9.1	9.1	9.1
Thao	11					9.1		9.1		72.7	9.1
Pazah	11					18.2		27.3		18.2	36.4

 

The Phylogeny of Y-chromosome Haplotypes in East Asians (H1-H17) from Natives or Immigrants: Modern human origin in east Asia by Li Jin and Bing Su

 

Markers in Su's Nomenclature System from A Nomenclature System for the Tree of Human
Y-Chromosomal Binary Haplogroups by The Y Chromosome Consortium

Name	Derived state at	Ancestral state at	Name by lineage
H5	M9	M122, M119, M95, M45, M5	K*(xO3,O1,O2a,P,M)
H6	M122	M7, M134	O3*(xO3d, O3e)
H7	M7		O3d
H8	M134		O3e
H9	M119	M50	O1*(xO1b)
H10	M50		O1b
H11	M95	M88	O2a*
H12	M88		O2a1
H14	M45	M120, M3, M17	P*(xQ1,Q3,R1a1)

 

 

Haplogroup K (Y-DNA)

Haplogroup K (M9) is a Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. This haplogroup is a descendant of Haplogroup IJK. Its major descendant haplogroups are Haplogroup LT (L298 = P326) and Haplogroup K(xLT) (M525). Paragroup K (haplogroups K*, K1, K2, K3 and K4) are found in Oceania, and Australia and only at low frequency in South Asia and the Malay Archipelago.

Origins: Y-DNA haplogroup K is an old lineage established approximately 40,000 years ago whose origins were probably in southwestern Asia. At present this group contains two distinct classes of subgroups: (1) major groups L to T (refer to the main tree at Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree) and (2) minor groups K* and K1 to K4 which do not have any of the SNPs defining the major groups. These groups are found at low frequencies in various parts of Africa, Eurasia, Australia and the South Pacific.

Subgroups: The basic structure of descent from the common male-line ancestor is as follows:

K* Important in Indigenous Australians from Arnhem Land=30%, Great Sandy Desert=17% and other parts of Australia=42%. High frequency in Micronesians from Kapingamarangi=67% and Majuro=64%. In Melanesia 21%, specially in Vanuatu=58%. In Filipinos=45%. In Northeast India=8.3%. In Europe found in Macedonians=1.3% ; Serbians=7.1 , Croatians=0.9 and Herzegovinians=2.8

 

 

* Paternal Genetic Affinity Between Western Austronesians and Daic Populations by Hui Li, et al.

Population	Size	C	D*	D1	F	M	K	O*	O1a*	O1a2	O2a*	O2a1	O3*	O3a1	O3a4	O3a5	O3a5a	P
Amis	28							7.1	42.8	17.8	7.1		21.4			3.6
Pazeh	21						14.3		38.1	19.1	14.3		14.3
Makatao	37	2.7					2.7	5.4	70.3		5.4					13.5
Thao	22						4.6		81.8	4.6			9.1
Paiwan	22								63.6	27.3						9.1
Atayal	22								95.5				4.5
Rukai	11								81.8	18.2
Pyuma	11								72.7	9.1			9.1					9.1
Tsou	18								88.9	5.6			5.6
Bunun	17						5.9		17.6	58.8		17.6
Saisiyat	11								45.5	9.1	9.1	9.1	27.3

 

 

* The GM Genetic Polymorphism in Taiwan Aborigines: New data revealing remarkable differentiation patterns
by Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, et al.

Multidimensional Scaling Analysis among 15 Populations from Taiwan and
China Based on the Frequencies of GM ± 23 Sub-haplotypes

Solid lines link populations that are undifferentiated at the 5% level according to an exact test of population differentiation. Dotted lines link populations that are undifferentiated at the 5% level according to a permutation test on pairwise Fst’s, but not to the exact test. Final stress = 0.041 (excellent). White circles: Sino-Tibetans; triangles: Austronesians from Taiwan; black circle: Extra-Formosan Austronesians.

Excerpt: The MDS (characterized by a very good stress value of 0.041) segregates four Northern and Central Han populations at the top, the Minnan from Taiwan in a central position, and the Southern Han from Guangzhou, the eight Austronesian populations from Taiwan and the extra-Formosan Yami at the bottom. The four Northern and Central Han populations are genetically linked to each other according to a pattern recalling their relative geographic position. The Minnan are genetically intermediate between the Northern and the Southern Han but are very distant from both groups and significantly differentiated from all populations. Within the last group, we observe three clusters of genetically related populations: the Atayal, Taroko and Tsou; the Pazeh, Siraya, Bunun and Puyuma; and the Ami and Yami. In addition, we find that the Southern Han from Guangzhou are genetically very close to the Taroko, Atayal and Tsou, from whom they are not differentiated significantly according to the permutation statistical test (dotted lines). Genetic relationships are also suggested between the Taroko and both the Siraya and Bunun, and between the Puyuma and the Ami according both to the permutation test and to their relative position in the MDS.

 

Multidimensional Scaling Analysis among 63 Populations from Southeast Asia
Excluding all Sino-Tibetans but the Southern Chinese (grouped)

The ‘mixed’ sample is composed of individuals from Fujian, Zhejiang, Jiangxi, and Hunan. ST-SC: Sino-Tibetan, Southern Chinese (Min, Xiang, Gan, Hakka, Yue); AA: Austroasiatic; KA: Tai-Kadai; AN-EF: Extra-Formosan Austronesian; AN-TW: Autronesian from Taiwan; HM: Hmong-Mien.

Excerpt: It is often argued (Lee et al. 2002) that the ‘plains tribes’ of Taiwan, i.e. those living in the west coast (Pazeh, Siraya), have been ‘sinicized’, that is, underwent high levels of gene flow from neighbouring Chinese people, this explaining their greater proximity to the latter (‘gene flow hypothesis’). However, our study does not show any peculiar genetic relationship between the ‘plains tribes’ and the local Chinese, who began settling the island more than three centuries ago. First, the Minnan are only distantly related to the Taiwanese aborigines, whether from the plains or the mountains (Figures 13.1 and 13.2). Second, although Siraya and Pazeh (i.e. ‘plains tribes’) lie closer to some populations from South China (Hong Kong) according to our low-resolution analysis (Figure 13.2), this is not true when we consider GM typings at high resolution (which includes G2M23 typings), where Taroko and Atayal (i.e. ‘mountain tribes’) are closer than the ‘plains tribes’ to the southern Chinese from Guangdong Province (Figure 13.1). Moreover, the level of genetic diversity is not different in the ‘plains’ and ‘mountain tribes’ mentioned above (Plate 13.Ib), while one would expect the ‘plains tribes’ to be more diversified under an admixture hypothesis. Different levels of gene flow from the Chinese do not explain the observed GM diversity.

 

* Heterogeneity of Taiwan’s Indigenous Population: Possible relation to prehistoric Mongoloid dispersals by m. Lin, et al.

Neighbor-joining tree of Taiwan’s indigenous peoples, Asians, North American Indians and Oceanians

Taiwan’s indigenous groups were found clustering together and adjacent to Maori and PNG Highlanders. Pazeh showed affinity with ‘Taiwanese’ (Minnan, Hakka)

 

* The Real Story of the Settlement of Taiwan's Peoples by Taiwan Identity

Excerpts: Many people have been taught the often repeated myth that goes like this: The Austronesian aboriginal tribes used to live in the plains of Taiwan. But then the Hakka came across the Taiwan Strait from China and pushed them back to the foothills. Then the Fujianese (Hoklo) came and pushed the Hakka to the foothills and the Austronesians to the mountains where they began to be called the "mountain tribes." This simplistic myth was probably pushed by the KMT dictatorship era to safeguard the prestige and claimed ethnic superiority of Han Chinese, to somehow say that the Chinese-derived language speakers of Taiwan have always been "Chinese," "blood is thicker than water," and all those claims to somehow say that Taiwan belongs to China....

There was some dislocation of Austronesian tribes, but on the whole the Austronesian plains tribes did not move to the mountains; they assimilated and became what is now the Hoklo and Hakka speaking populations of the majority of the people of Taiwan, now called "Taiwanese". Examples include the Siraya, Pazeh, Ketagalan, Kavalan, etc. to name a few.

 

* HLA-B27 and Its Subtypes in 4 Taiwanese Aborigine Tribes: A comparison to Han Chinese patients with ankylosing spondylitis by Chou CT, et al.

OBJECTIVE: We surveyed B27 and its subtypes in 5 ethnic groups in Taiwan. METHODS: Blood was obtained from 281 Aborigine people of the Atayal tribe (I-Lan), 141 Paiwan (Ping-Ton), 38 Rukai (Ping-Ton), and 40 Yami (Orchid Island), and also 47 B27+ healthy Han Chinese subjects and 82 B27+ Han patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). HLA-B27 and its subtypes were determined by standard methods. RESULTS: A much higher prevalence of B27 was found among the Atayal Aborigines (9.2%), which was significantly different from a lower prevalence in the Paiwan (2.1%; p = 0.004) and even higher than that of Han Chinese (5.59%; p = 0.04). No blood sample from the 38 Rukai Aborigines showed any B27. B2704 was the only subtype (100%) found in the 28 healthy Aborigines and 2 Aborigine patients with AS. However, in Chinese subjects, 40 of 47 (85%) B27+ healthy subjects were B2704, and 7 of 47 (15%) were B2705. In Chinese B27+ AS patients, 77 of 82 (94%) were B2704 and 5 of 82 (6%) were B2705. No other subtypes were found. Only the Aborigines without AS carrying B2704 showed a significant difference from the Chinese without AS carrying B2704 (p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: The different prevalence of B27, but similar frequency of the B2704 subtype, between Aborigines and Han Chinese suggests Aborigines are a unique population and may originate from an Asian country, possibly mainland China.

 

Human Leukocyte Antigen B*27 (subtypes B*2701-2724) is a class I surface antigen encoded by the B locus in the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) on chromosome 6 and presents microbial antigens to T-cells. HLA-B27 is strongly associated with a certain set of autoimmune diseases referred to as the "seronegative spondyloarthropathies". In the general population, about 8% Caucasian, 4% African, 2-9% Chinese, and 0.1-0.5% Japanese have the HLA-B27 antigen. In Northern Scandinavia (Lapland), 24% of people are HLA-B27 positive while 1.8% have associated ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

HLA B*2704 Frequencies

PNG Karimui Plateau	22.5
Taiwan Pazeh	10.9
PNG West Schrader Ranges	9.1
Tibet (China) Tibetans	7.0
Taiwan Siraya	6.9
Bulgaria Gipsy	4.5
New Caledonia	3.9
China Guangzhou	2.5
India Mumbai Marathas	2.5
Singapore Thai	2.5
Thailand	2.0
China Inner Mongolia	1.5
China South Han	1.2
Philippines Ivatan	1.0
Taiwan Ami	1.0

 

HLA B*2705 Frequencies

Belgium	7.1
Finland	6.1
Ireland South	4.2
India Tamil Nadu Nadar	4.1
India North Hindus	3.8
Croatia	3.7
Portugal North	3.3
Czech Republic	2.8
Azores Terceira Island	2.7
Azores Santa Maria & Sao Miguel	2.6
South Korea pop 3	2.5
France South East	2.3
Morocco Nador Metalsa Class I	2.1
Portugal South	2.0
Spain Eastern Andalusia Gipsy	2.0
Italy North Pavia	1.9
Azores Central Islands	1.8
Bulgaria	1.8
Israel Jews	1.8
Georgia Tibilisi Kurds	1.7
India New Delhi	1.5

 

 

HLA-B46

HLA-B46 (B46) is an HLA-B serotype. The serotype identifies the gene products of HLA-B*4601 allele. B*4601 resulted from a rare, interlocus, gene conversion between B62, probably B*1501, and a HLA-C allele. B*4601 is the most common HLA-B allele that does not have an origin within Africa, and estimated 400 million people in Eastern Asia carry a B46 allele. When found B*4601 segregates with only 2 HLA-Cw alleles, A limited number of HLA-A and HLA-DRB1 alleles suggesting that the allele recently expanded from a limited sized group within SE Asia. Extremely low frequencies outside of Eastern Asia are indicators of a recent expansion of B46 from a recently small population. The frequency distribution suggests the ancestral B46 population was in SE China, or, potentially Burma (Myanmar or Laos, untested). B46 in asia correlates with wet-rice farming. The exceptions are notable, it has been found in the Nivkhi on north-eastern Sakalin Island, the Ainu, and the Nivkhi-related (genetically) Tlinglet population of Alaska at trace levels. (For terminology help see: HLA-serotype tutorial)

 

HLA B*4601 frequencies

Population	freq (%)
Buyei (China)	21.6
Miao (China)	18.4
Han (2) (Yunnan, China)	17.9
Thai (in Singapore)	17.2
Southern Chinese (in Taiwan)	17.2
Chinese (in Hong Kong)	16.3
Hakka (2)(Taiwan)	15.6
Guangzhou (China)	15.5
Northeastern Thailand	15.1
Minnan (Avg 1 & 2) (Taiwan)	15.0
Middle' Chinese (in Taiwan)	15.0
Hakka (Taiwan)	13.6
Wuhan (China)	13.5
Maonan (Guangxi , China)	13.4
Chinese (in Singapore)	13.4
Vietnamese	13.2
Southern Han (China)	11.5
Shanghai (China)	11.2
Meizhou Han (Guangdong, China)	10.0
Shijiazhuang Tianjian Han (Beijing)	9.6
Guangzhou Han (China)	9.4
Nu (Yunnan, China)	9.0
Northern Chinese (in Taiwan)	8.6
Pazeh (Taiwan)	8.2
Aichi (Japan)	7.6
Lisu (Yunnan, China)	7.2
Beijing (China)	6.8
Naxi (Yunnan, China)	6.1
Hui (Qinghai, China)	5.9
Northern Han (China)	5.7
Japan (3)	5.0
Hyogo (Japan)	4.7
South Korea (3)	4.4
Man (Harbin City, China)	4.1
Siraya (Taiwan)	3.9
Central Japan	3.6
Timorese	2.6
Inner Mongolia (China)	2.0
Javanese (in Singapore)	2.0
Oold (Mongolia)	1.9
Nivkhi (Sakhalin I, Russia) sland	1.9
Thao (Taiwan)	1.7
Riau Malay (in Singapore)	1.5
Tuva (2) (Russia)	1.4
Tibetan (China)	1.3
Khalkh (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia)	1.2
Ainu (Hokkaidō, Japan)	1.0
Okinawa (in Hawaii, USA)	1.0
Indigenous (Taiwan)	0.9
Khalkha (Mongolia)	0.5
Brahui (Pakistan)	0.5
Linqu County (Shandong, China)	3.3

 

HLA-B*4601 Abundance

Dark Red = 7% or greater,
Red = 3 to 7%
Orange = 1 to 3%
Green = O to 1%
Black = regions not typed

A2-Cw11(1)-B46: This haplotype is unique in several regards, first and most importantly the B46 serotype is not from Africa, this distinguishes it from every other known B serotype. It is the result of a recombination event between B62(B*1501) and an HLA-C allele within Asia. This event happened recently as there is only one major allele and minor alleles are at trace frequencies. There has been some recombination between this haplotype, A24 and A11 bearing alleles, probably in a local (or tribal population). B46 is found wherever Asian wet-rice farming peoples have traveled and is found at low frequencies in non-farming indigenous groups. The one exception is the Ninhvet of Siberia and the Eastern Tlinglet of Alaska. This B46 contribution appears to have been recent. Because of the numbers of people represented by the sample groups, and its relative high frequency in those group A2-B46 is one of the most frequent, if not the most frequent A-B haplotype in the world, even though it is absent from the indigenous populations of most peoples in the world.

The most common haplotype, and probably the ancestral haplotype given its distribution from the Ninhivet to Indonesia is:

A*0207 : C*0102 : B*4601 : DRB1*0901 : DQA1*0302 : DQB1*0303

A different haplotype that is more common in Korea and Japan is

A*0207 : C*0102 : B*4601 : DRB1*0803 : DQA1*0103 : DQB1*0601

B46, or a closely linked allele may have been under positive selection in rice farmers of Asia.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Shi San Hang (十三行遺址)

 

* 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

 

 

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。

___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

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.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

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」。

 

 

* 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.

 

 

* 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.

 

* Documentation of the Most Endangered Formosan Languages by Paul Li

Abstract: The problems of criteria for being endangered languages and what aspects of language to study are briefly discussed. There are five most endangered Formosan languages: Pazih, Thao, Kanakanavu, Saaroa and Kavalan. An account of the work that has been done on each of these languages is given. Finally there is a short discussion of what has been done to conserve and revitalize these endangered languages in Taiwan.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

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)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

巴宰族

巴宰族（Pazih），又名巴則海族、拍宰海族，為台灣平埔族原住民。主要居住在台灣中部埔里盆地愛蘭地區，目前仍保有族語巴宰語及傳統文化。

巴宰族起源與沿革

巴宰族原本分布於台中豐原、神岡、后里附近較靠內陸的區域，約略位置是以豐原為中心，北至大甲溪河岸，東到東勢角（今東勢），南至潭仔墘（今潭子），西則到達大肚山山麓的橫岡一帶。16世紀中，主要部落有岸裡社、烏牛欄社、朴仔籬社及阿里史社等四至五個社。1699年，岸裡社還曾協助清朝「平定」吞霄社叛亂（吞霄社事件）。19世紀，因郭百年事件遷入南投埔里。

割地換水事件

所謂的割地換水就是以地權換水權之意，即巴宰族用土地與漢人交換灌溉用水的事件。

族群正名運動

巴宰族人在近年也發起正名運動，希望獲得官方承認。個別族群身份的認定，基本上可以直接去戶籍所在地的戶政事務所調閱日治時期所遺交下來的戶籍資料，在日治時期戶籍謄本上「種族」一欄有登錄種族別。「種族」一欄種族別依山地原住民、平地原住民、閩南人與客家人分別註記為：山地原住民註記為「生」（生蕃）、平地原住民註記為「熟」（為「熟蕃」，指平埔族）、閩南人註記為「福」（閩南人）、客家人註記為「粵」或「廣」（廣東來的客家人）。

族系分支

巴宰族亦屬平埔族群其中一族，最大特徵是成人身高比一般南島系原住民高，約在170cm以上。巴宰族又可分為巴宰本族（Pazih）以及噶哈巫族（Kaxabu）（朴仔籬社則屬噶哈巫族）。以地區分類而言，豐原以西為巴宰本族，以東五社為噶哈巫族。巴宰族人遷入埔里後，住在烏牛欄台地（愛蘭台地）多為巴宰族；居住於眉溪流域旁之眉溪四庄（牛眠山、守城份、大湳、蜈蚣崙）則為噶哈巫族。

兩族因為族語及文化相近，故依據伊能嘉矩之分類仍把它歸為同一族。至今會講巴宰語的則為愛蘭地區的潘金玉女士；眉溪四庄則為已故之潘郡乃先生之後裔潘永歷先生仍會使用噶哈巫語，甚至仍會唱噶哈巫古調"憶祖之歌"（ayan；愛煙）。

風潮唱片所出的巴宰族音樂〈巴宰族（噶哈巫族）Ayan之歌〉，即是音樂學者吳榮順從四庄採集得到。噶哈巫族在埔里俗稱「眉溪四庄番」，正因為當地人承襲祖先驍勇善戰的精神。日治時期多為義勇軍，能與鄰近的泰雅族抗衡。故也在埔里流傳一句話「四庄正是番」。該族的過年稱為「番仔過年」或「姓潘的人過年」為農曆十一月十五左右舉行。並製作傳統食物「阿拉粿」，及舉辦「牽田」（mahalit）、「抓大魚」、「走標」（maazazuah）等族群傳統活動。

語言瀕危

巴宰語面臨最嚴重的失傳問題，現只剩潘金玉女士一人會說巴宰語，大部份巴宰族人被台灣閩南人同化。1914年出生的潘金玉，這幾年全力投入「巴宰語」的復甦運動。

2001年潘金玉協助中央研究院語言學研究所李壬癸院士、及日籍學者土田滋編纂全世界第一本的《巴宰語詞典》。目前南投埔里愛蘭教會每星期六上午都有在教授巴宰語。

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

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

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

噶哈巫族（Kaxabu）

噶哈巫族（Kaxabu）為台灣平埔族原住民、使用噶哈巫語。主要居住在台灣中部埔里盆地眉溪四庄（牛眠山、守城份、大湳、蜈蚣崙），在仁愛鄉南豐村、大同村、及霧社地區也有少數族人，目前仍保有族語及傳統文化，其語言也被聯合國教科文組織認定為全世界瀕臨絕種的18種語言之一（被歸類成巴宰語的一部份）。

分布: 噶哈巫族原本分布於約略位置是以豐原為中心，以東的新社.東勢一帶，主要部落為朴仔籬社（又分許多小社）。 現今的噶哈巫族聚落為埔里眉溪兩岸的四個村莊，（牛眠山、守城份、大湳、蜈蚣崙），

歷史: 大甲西社抗清事件，噶哈巫族協助道卡斯族及巴布拉族一起反抗清朝勢力，巴宰族則在清朝的協助下，征服中部平埔族，取代大肚王朝，形成中部的新勢力。 19世紀，原鄉土地遭受漢人侵佔騙取，及漢人帶來的傳染疾病，平埔族群無力抵抗，原鄉地區將不適合居住，是噶哈巫族遷徙的推力，在郭百年事件過後，平埔番親在邵族的引介下共同防守的拉力因素遷入南投埔里。

族群正名運動: 噶哈巫族人在近年也發起正名運動，希望獲得官方承認。個別族群身份的認定，基本上可以直接去戶籍所在地的戶政事務所調閱日治時期所遺交下來的戶籍資料，在日治時期戶籍謄本上「種族」一欄有登錄種族別。「種族」一欄種族別依山地原住民、平地原住民、閩南人與客家人分別註記為：山地原住民註記為「生」（生蕃）、平地原住民註記為「熟」（為「熟蕃」，指平埔族）、閩南人註記為「福」（閩南人）、客家人註記為「粵」或「廣」（廣東來的客家人）。 （目前噶哈巫族仍被學者認為是巴宰族的一支，但是噶哈巫族人很堅持自己是噶哈巫族，和巴宰族是不同的族群）

族群遷移: 噶哈巫族屬平埔族群其中一族。原朴仔籬社屬於噶哈巫族。最早荷蘭戶口表記載之Poaly，即為清代文獻記載的「樸仔籬社」，分佈於大甲溪河岸流域，在今之台中縣東勢鎮、石岡鄉、新社鄉等地區。以地區分類而言，豐原以西為巴宰本族，以東五社為噶哈巫族。

目前居住於眉溪流域旁之眉溪四庄（牛眠山、守城份、大湳、蜈蚣崙）則為噶哈巫族。眉溪四庄祖噶哈巫族先來自今台中縣新社鄉大甲溪沿岸的台階地，居住地分別叫做「山頂社」、「大湳社」、「水底寮社」、「馬歷埔」等地。於清末道光三年（1823年）起因耕地狹小、生活不易、粵籍移民開墾逐漸逼近，而開始移民、陸續遷移到埔里盆地。落居在盆地東北角眉溪流域的南北岸，其聚落分別叫做「蜈蚣」、「大湳」、「守城」、「牛眠山」四個村莊，當時人俗稱「四庄番」。

噶哈巫族使用噶哈巫語因為族語及文化與巴宰族相近，故依據伊能嘉矩之分類仍把它歸為同一族。至今會講噶哈巫語為眉溪四庄則為已故之潘郡乃先生之後裔潘永歷先生。他甚至仍會唱噶哈巫古調"憶祖之歌"（ayan; 艾煙）。巴宰語部份則為愛蘭地區的潘金玉女士，她仍會流利使用巴宰語。

為了解決噶哈巫族和巴宰族的族名紛爭，曾有人希望以Abuan（阿霧安）這個名稱來整合。

風俗文化

• 服飾

噶哈巫族傳統服飾有紅、藍、白等顏色，大都使用菱形、直條等幾何圖形圖騰，顏色和圖案多變，台灣歷史博物館館藏的巴宰族文物中,其好漢旗(標旗)即是噶哈巫族最傳統的圖騰。

• 飲食

阿拉粿.酒.生肉醃漬.青苔及野菜採集。

• 音樂

風潮唱片所出的噶哈巫族音樂〈巴宰族（噶哈巫族）Ayan之歌〉，即是音樂學者吳榮順從四庄採集得到。

• 節慶

噶哈巫人在歲末農田收割後舉行「收穫祭」和「祖靈祭」，後來逐漸演變成為噶哈巫過年，又稱為「番仔過年」或「姓潘的人過年」為農曆十一月十五左右舉行，除製作傳統食物「阿拉粿」外，也進行「牽田」（族人在田間圍火唱Ai-ian母語曲調歌謠)、「抓大魚」、「走標」（maazazuah）等之活動，以紀念祖先、祈禱平安，並凝聚族人感情。

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

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