Taiwanese indigenous peoples

Lộc Tục
涇陽王
Lộc Tục; 涇陽王
Leader of Xích Quỷ
Reign	2879 - 2792 BC
Predecessor	Đế Minh
Successor	Hồng Bàng Dynasty started
Hồng Bàng Thị
Reign	2879 - 2794 BC
Predecessor	Founder of Hồng Bàng Thị
Successor	Lạc Long Quân
Born	15 August 2919 BC; Hunan, China
Died	18 January 2792 BC (127 years old); Thuận Thành, Bắc Ninh Province
Spouse	Thần Long
Issue	Sùng Lãm
Names
Names
	Lộc Tục (祿續)
House	Hồng Bàng
Father	Đế Minh
Mother	Vụ Tiên Nữ's daughter

Taiwanese indigenous peoples
Taiwanese indigenous peoples
Traditional Chinese	臺灣原住民
Simplified Chinese	台湾原住民
Literal meaning	Taiwanese original inhabitants
Hanyu Pinyin
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu Pinyin	Tái wān yuán zhù mín
Bopomofo	ㄊㄞˊㄨㄢㄩㄢˊㄓㄨˋ ㄇㄧㄣˊ
Wade–Giles	T'ai2 wan yüan2 chu4 min2
IPA	[tʰǎɪ.wán] [ɥɛ̌nʈʂûmin]
Hakka
Romanization	Toi2 van ngian2 cu4 min2
Pha̍k-fa-sṳ	Thòi-vân Ngièn-chhu-mìn
Southern Min
Hokkien POJ	Tâi-ôan gôan-chū-bîn
Tâi-lô	Tâi-uân guân-tsū-bîn

Taiwanese indigenous peoples
	Paiwan and Rukai in Pingtung County
Total population
	~569,000 or 2.50% of the population of Taiwan; (Non-status and unrecognized indigenous peoples excluded)
Regions with significant populations
	Taiwan and Orchid Island
Languages
	Atayal, Bunun, Amis, Paiwan, other Formosan languages.; Chinese languages (Mandarin, Hokkien, Hakka)
Religion
	Majority Christianity, minority Animism
Related ethnic groups
	Taiwanese people, other Austronesians

Taiwanese indigenous peoples, also known as Native Taiwanese, Formosan peoples, Austronesian Taiwanese,^[2]^[3] Yuanzhumin or Gaoshan people,^[4] and formerly as Taiwanese aborigines, are the indigenous peoples of Taiwan, with the nationally recognized subgroups numbering about 569,000 or 2.38% of the island's population. This total is increased to more than 800,000 if the indigenous peoples of the plains in Taiwan are included, pending future official recognition. When including those of mixed ancestry, such a number is possibly more than a million. Academic research suggests that their ancestors have been living on Taiwan for approximately 6,500 years. A wide body of evidence suggests that the Taiwanese indigenous peoples had maintained regular trade networks with numerous regional cultures of Southeast Asia before the Han Chinese colonists began settling on the island from the 17th century, at the behest of the Dutch colonial administration and later by successive governments towards the 20th century.^[5]^[6]

Taiwanese indigenous peoples are Austronesians, with linguistic and cultural ties to other Austronesian peoples in the region.^[7] Taiwan is also the origin and linguistic homeland of the oceanic Austronesian expansion whose descendant groups today include the majority of the ethnic groups throughout many parts of East and Southeast Asia as well as Oceania, which includes Brunei, East Timor, Indonesia, Malaysia, Madagascar, Philippines, Micronesia, Island Melanesia and Polynesia. The Chams and Utsul of contemporary central and southern Vietnam and Hainan respectively are also a part of the Austronesian family.

For centuries, Taiwan's indigenous inhabitants experienced economic competition and military conflict with a series of colonizing newcomers. Centralized government policies designed to foster language shift and cultural assimilation, as well as continued contact with the colonizers through trade, inter-marriage and other intercultural processes, have resulted in varying degrees of language death and loss of original cultural identity. For example, of the approximately 26 known languages of the Taiwanese indigenous peoples – collectively referred to as the Formosan languages – at least ten are now extinct, five are moribund^[8] and several are to some degree endangered. These languages are of unique historical significance since most historical linguists consider Taiwan to be the original homeland of the Austronesian language family.^[5]

Due to discrimination or repression throughout the centuries, the indigenous peoples of Taiwan have experienced economic and social inequality, including a high unemployment rate and substandard education. Some indigenous groups today continue to be unrecognized by the government. Since the early 1980s, many indigenous groups have been actively seeking a higher degree of political self-determination and economic development.^[9] The revival of ethnic pride is expressed in many ways by the indigenous peoples, including the incorporation of elements of their culture into cultural commodities such as cultural tourism, pop music and sports. Taiwan's Austronesian speakers were formerly distributed over much of the Taiwan archipelago, including the Central Mountain Range villages along the alluvial plains, as well as Orchid Island, Green Island, and Liuqiu Island.

The bulk of contemporary Taiwanese indigenous peoples mostly reside both in their traditional mountain villages as well as increasingly in Taiwan's urban areas. There are also the plains indigenous peoples, which have always lived in the lowland areas of the island. Ever since the end of the White Terror, some efforts have been under way in indigenous communities to revive traditional cultural practices and preserve their distinct traditional languages on the now Han Chinese majority island and for the latter to better understand more about them.^[10] The Austronesian Cultural Festival in Taitung City is one means by which community members promote indigenous culture. In addition, several indigenous communities have become extensively involved in the tourism and ecotourism industries with the goal of achieving increased economic self-reliance and maintaining cultural integration.^[11]

Terminology

For most of their recorded history, Taiwanese indigenous peoples have been defined by the agents of different Confucian, Christian and Nationalist "civilizing" projects, with a variety of aims. Each "civilizing" project defined the aborigines based on the "civilizer's" cultural understandings of difference and similarity, behavior, location, appearance and prior contact with other groups of people.^[12] Taxonomies imposed by colonizing forces divided the aborigines into named subgroups, referred to as "tribes". These divisions did not always correspond to distinctions drawn by the aborigines themselves. However, the categories have become so firmly established in government and popular discourse over time that they have become de facto distinctions, serving to shape in part today's political discourse within the Republic of China (ROC), and affecting Taiwan's policies regarding indigenous peoples.^{[citation needed]}

A Taiwanese aborigine woman and infant, by John Thomson, 1871

The Han sailor Chen Di, in his Record of the Eastern Seas (1603), identifies the indigenous people of Taiwan as simply "Eastern Savages" (東番; Dongfan), while the Dutch referred to Taiwan's original inhabitants as "Indians" or "blacks", based on their prior colonial experience in what is currently Indonesia.^[13]

Beginning nearly a century later, as the rule of the Qing Empire expanded over wider groups of people, writers and gazetteers recast their descriptions away from reflecting degree of acculturation, and toward a system that defined the aborigines relative to their submission or hostility to Qing rule. Qing used the term "raw/wild/uncivilized" (生番) to define those people who had not submitted to Qing rule, and "cooked/tamed/civilized" (熟番) for those who had pledged their allegiance through their payment of a head tax.^{[note 1]} According to the standards of the Qianlong Emperor and successive regimes, the epithet "cooked" was synonymous with having assimilated to Han cultural norms, and living as a subject of the Empire, but it retained a pejorative designation to signify the perceived cultural lacking of the non-Han people.^[15]^[16] This designation reflected the prevailing idea that anyone could be civilized/tamed by adopting Confucian social norms.^[17]^[18]

As the Qing consolidated their power over the plains and struggled to enter the mountains in the late 19th century, the terms Pingpu (平埔族; Píngpǔzú; 'Plains peoples') and Gaoshan (高山族; Gāoshānzú; 'High Mountain peoples') were used interchangeably with the epithets "civilized" and "uncivilized".^[19] During Japanese rule (1895–1945), anthropologists from Japan maintained the binary classification. In 1900 they incorporated it into their own colonial project by employing the term Peipo (平埔) for the "civilized tribes", and creating a category of "recognized tribes" for the aborigines who had formerly been called "uncivilized". The Musha Incident of 1930 led to many changes in aboriginal policy, and the Japanese government began referring to them as Takasago-zoku (高砂族).^[20]

The latter group included the Atayal, Bunun, Tsou, Saisiat, Paiwan, Puyuma, and Amis peoples. The Tao (Yami) and Rukai were added later, for a total of nine recognized peoples.^[21] During the early period of Chinese Nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) rule the terms Shandi Tongbao (山地同胞) "mountain compatriots" and Pingdi Tongbao (平地同胞) "plains compatriots" were invented, to remove the presumed taint of Japanese influence and reflect the place of Taiwan's indigenous people in the Chinese Nationalist state.^[22] The KMT later adopted the use of all the earlier Japanese groupings except Peipo.

Despite recent changes in the field of anthropology and a shift in government objectives, the Pingpu and Gaoshan labels in use today maintain the form given by the Qing to reflect aborigines' acculturation to Han culture.^{[citation needed]}The current recognized aborigines are all regarded as Gaoshan, though the divisions are not and have never been based strictly on geographical location. The Amis, Saisiat, Tao and Kavalan are all traditionally Eastern Plains cultures.^[23] The distinction between Pingpu and Gaoshan people continues to affect Taiwan's policies regarding indigenous peoples, and their ability to participate effectively in government.^[24]

Although the ROC's Government Information Office officially lists 16 major groupings as "tribes," the consensus among scholars maintains that these 16 groupings do not reflect any social entities, political collectives, or self-identified alliances dating from pre-modern Taiwan.^[25] The earliest detailed records, dating from the Dutch arrival in 1624, describe the aborigines as living in independent villages of varying size. Between these villages there was frequent trade, intermarriage, warfare and alliances against common enemies. Using contemporary ethnographic and linguistic criteria, these villages have been classed by anthropologists into more than 20 broad (and widely debated) ethnic groupings,^[26]^[27] which were never united under a common polity, kingdom or "tribe".^[28]

Population of officially recognized Taiwanese indigenous peoples in 1911^[29]
Atayal	Saisiyat	Bunun	Tsou	Rukai	Paiwan	Puyuma	Amis	Yami	Total
27,871	770	16,007	2,325	13,242	21,067	6,407	32,783	1,487	121,950

Since 2005, some local governments, including Tainan City in 2005, Fuli, Hualien in 2013, and Pingtung County in 2016, have begun to recognize Taiwanese Plain Indigenous peoples. The numbers of people who have successfully registered, including Kaohsiung City Government that has opened to register but not yet recognized, as of 2017 are:^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33]


	Siraya	Taivoan	Makatao	Not Specific	Total
Tainan	11,830	-	-	–	11,830
Kaohsiung	107	129	–	237	473
Pingtung	–	–	1,803	205	2,008
Fuli, Hualien	–	–	–	100	100
Total	11,937	129	1,803	542	14,411

Recognized peoples[edit]

Indigenous ethnic groups recognized by Taiwan[edit]

Clickable imagemap of highland peoples according to traditional geographical distribution. Alternate spellings or names: Pazih (Pazeh); Taroko (Truku, Seediq); Yami (Tao)

The Government of the Republic of China officially recognizes distinct people groups among the indigenous community based upon the qualifications drawn up by the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP).^[34] To gain this recognition, communities must gather a number of signatures and a body of supporting evidence with which to successfully petition the CIP. Formal recognition confers certain legal benefits and rights upon a group, as well as providing them with the satisfaction of recovering their separate identity as an ethnic group. As of June 2014, 16 people groups have been recognized.^[35]

The Council of Indigenous Peoples consider several limited factors in a successful formal petition. The determining factors include collecting member genealogies, group histories and evidence of a continued linguistic and cultural identity.^[36]^[37] The lack of documentation and the extinction of many indigenous languages as the result of colonial cultural and language policies have made the prospect of official recognition of many ethnicities a remote possibility. Current trends in ethno-tourism have led many former Plains Aborigines to continue to seek cultural revival.^[38]

Among the Plains groups that have petitioned for official status, only the Kavalan and Sakizaya have been officially recognized. The remaining twelve recognized groups are traditionally regarded as mountain aboriginals.^{[citation needed]}

Other indigenous groups or subgroups that have pressed for recovery of legal aboriginal status include Chimo (who have not formally petitioned the government, see Lee 2003), Kakabu, Makatao, Pazeh, Siraya,^[39] and Taivoan. The act of petitioning for recognized status, however, does not always reflect any consensus view among scholars that the relevant group should in fact be categorized as a separate ethnic group. The Siraya will become the 17th ethnic group to be recognized once their status, already recognized by the courts in May 2018, is officially announced by the central government.^[40]

There is discussion among both scholars and political groups regarding the best or most appropriate name to use for many of the people groups and their languages, as well as the proper romanization of that name. Commonly cited examples of this ambiguity include (Seediq/Sediq/Truku/Taroko) and (Tao/Yami).

Nine people groups were originally recognized before 1945 by the Japanese government.^[34] The Thao, Kavalan and Truku were recognized by Taiwan's government in 2001, 2002 and 2004 respectively. The Sakizaya were recognized as a 13th on 17 January 2007,^[41] and on 23 April 2008 the Sediq were recognized as Taiwan's 14th official ethnic group.^[42] Previously the Sakizaya had been listed as Amis and the Sediq as Atayal. Hla'alua and Kanakanavu were recognized as the 15th and 16th ethnic group on 26 June 2014.^[35] A full list of the recognized ethnic groups of Taiwan, as well as some of the more commonly cited unrecognized peoples, is as follows:

Recognized: Ami, Atayal, Bunun, Hla'alua, Kanakanavu, Kavalan, Paiwan, Puyuma, Rukai, Saisiyat, Tao, Thao, Tsou, Truku, Sakizaya and Sediq.

Locally recognized: Makatao (in Pingtung and Fuli), Siraya (in Tainan and Fuli), Taivoan (in Fuli)

Unrecognized: Babuza, Basay, Hoanya, Ketagalan, Luilang, Pazeh/Kaxabu, Papora, Qauqaut, Taokas, Trobiawan.

Indigenous Taiwanese in mainland China[edit]

The depiction of the Gāoshān people as one of Taiwan's ethnic groups, pictured here between the Hani people and the Ewenki

The People's Republic of China (PRC) officially recognizes indigenous Taiwanese as one of its ethnic groups under the name Gāoshān (高山, lit. "high mountain".) The 2000 census identified 600 thousand Gāoshān living in Taiwan Island; other surveys suggest this accounted for 21 thousand Amis, 51 thousand Bunun, 10.5 thousand Paiwan, with the remainder belonging to other peoples.^[4] They are descendants of indigenous Taiwanese aboriginals living on this island before the 1949 evacuation of the PRC and tracking all the way back further to the Dutch colony in the 17th century.^[4] In Zhengzhou, Henan, there exists a "Taiwan Village" (台灣村) whose inhabitants' ancestors migrated from Taiwan during the Kangxi era of the Qing dynasty. In 2005, 2,674 people of the village identified themselves as Gaoshan.^[43]^[44]

Assimilation and acculturation[edit]

Archeological, linguistic and anecdotal evidence suggests that Taiwan's indigenous peoples have undergone a series of cultural shifts to meet the pressures of contact with other societies and new technologies.^[45] Beginning in the early 17th century, indigenous Taiwanese faced broad cultural change as the island became incorporated into the wider global economy by a succession of competing colonial regimes from Europe and Asia.^[46]^[47] In some cases groups of indigenes resisted colonial influence, but other groups and individuals readily aligned with the colonial powers. This alignment could be leveraged to achieve personal or collective economic gain, collective power over neighboring villages or freedom from unfavorable societal customs and taboos involving marriage, age-grade and child birth.^[48]^[49]

Particularly among the Plains Aborigines, as the degree of the "civilizing projects" increased during each successive regime, the aborigines found themselves in greater contact with outside cultures. The process of acculturation and assimilation sometimes followed gradually in the wake of broad social currents, particularly the removal of ethnic markers (such as bound feet, dietary customs and clothing), which had formerly distinguished ethnic groups on Taiwan.^[50] The removal or replacement of these brought about an incremental transformation from "Fan" (番, barbarian) to the dominant Confucian "Han" culture.^[51] During the Japanese and KMT periods centralized modernist government policies, rooted in ideas of Social Darwinism and culturalism, directed education, genealogical customs and other traditions toward ethnic assimilation.^[52]^[53]

Within the Taiwanese Han Hoklo community itself, differences in culture indicate the degree to which mixture with aboriginals took place, with most pure Hoklo Han in Northern Taiwan having almost no Aboriginal admixture, which is limited to Hoklo Han in Southern Taiwan.^[54] Plains aboriginals who were mixed and assimilated into the Hoklo Han population at different stages were differentiated by the historian Melissa J. Brown between "short-route" and "long-route".^[55] The ethnic identity of assimilated Plains Aboriginals in the immediate vicinity of Tainan was still known since a pure Hoklo Taiwanese girl was warned by her mother to stay away from them.^[56] The insulting name "fan" was used against Plains Aborigines by the Taiwanese, and the Hoklo Taiwanese speech was forced upon Aborigines like the Pazeh.^[57] Hoklo Taiwanese has replaced Pazeh and driven it to near extinction.^[58] Aboriginal status has been requested by Plains Aboriginals.^[59]

Current forms of assimilation[edit]

Many of these forms of assimilation are still at work today. For example, when a central authority nationalizes one language, that attaches economic and social advantages to the prestige language. As generations pass, use of the indigenous language often fades or disappears, and linguistic and cultural identity recede as well. However, some groups are seeking to revive their indigenous identities.^[60] One important political aspect of this pursuit is petitioning the government for official recognition as a separate and distinct ethnic group.^{[citation needed]}

The complexity and scope of aboriginal assimilation and acculturation on Taiwan has led to three general narratives of Taiwanese ethnic change. The oldest holds that Han migration from Fujian and Guangdong in the 17th century pushed the Plains Aborigines into the mountains, where they became the Highland peoples of today.^[61] A more recent view asserts that through widespread intermarriage between Han and aborigines between the 17th and 19th centuries, the aborigines were completely Sinicized.^[62]^[63] Finally, modern ethnographical and anthropological studies have shown a pattern of cultural shift mutually experienced by both Han and Plains Aborigines, resulting in a hybrid culture. Today people who comprise Taiwan's ethnic Han demonstrate major cultural differences from Han elsewhere.^[64]^[38]

Surnames and identity[edit]

Several factors encouraged the assimilation of the Plains Aborigines.^{[note 2]} Taking a Han name was a necessary step in instilling Confucian values in the aborigines.^[66] Confucian values were necessary to be recognized as a full person and to operate within the Confucian Qing state.^[67] A surname in Han society was viewed as the most prominent legitimizing marker of a patrilineal ancestral link to the Yellow Emperor (Huang Di) and the Five Emperors of Han mythology.^[68] Possession of a Han surname, then, could confer a broad range of significant economic and social benefits upon aborigines, despite a prior non-Han identity or mixed parentage. In some cases, members of Plains Aborigines adopted the Han surname Pan (潘) as a modification of their designated status as Fan (番: "barbarian").^[69] One family of Pazeh became members of the local gentry.^[70]^[71] complete with a lineage to Fujian province. In other cases, families of Plains Aborigines adopted common Han surnames, but traced their earliest ancestor to their locality in Taiwan.^{[citation needed]}

In many cases, large groups of immigrant Han would unite under a common surname to form a brotherhood. Brotherhoods were used as a form of defense, as each sworn brother was bound by an oath of blood to assist a brother in need. The brotherhood groups would link their names to a family tree, in essence manufacturing a genealogy based on names rather than blood, and taking the place of the kinship organizations commonly found in China. The practice was so widespread that today's family books are largely unreliable.^[67]^[72] Many Plains Aborigines joined the brotherhoods to gain protection of the collective as a type of insurance policy against regional strife, and through these groups they took on a Han identity with a Han lineage.

The degree to which any one of these forces held sway over others is unclear. Preference for one explanation over another is sometimes predicated upon a given political viewpoint. The cumulative effect of these dynamics is that by the beginning of the 20th century the Plains Aborigines were almost completely acculturated into the larger ethnic Han group, and had experienced nearly total language shift from their respective Formosan languages to Chinese. In addition, legal barriers to the use of traditional surnames persisted until the 1990s, and cultural barriers remain. Aborigines were not permitted to use their traditional names on official identification cards until 1995 when a ban on using aboriginal names dating from 1946 was finally lifted.^[73] One obstacle is that household registration forms allow a maximum of 15 characters for personal names. However, indigenous names are still phonetically translated into Chinese characters, and many names require more than the allotted space.^[74] In April 2022, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Status Act for Indigenous Peoples was unconstitutional. The paragraph, which reads "Children of intermarriages between Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous Peoples taking the surname of the indigenous father or mother, or using a traditional Indigenous Peoples name, shall acquire Indigenous Peoples status," was ruled unconstitutional after a non-indigenous father had taken his daughter to a household registration office to register her Truku descent. Though the applicant was of Truku descent through her mother, her application used her father's Chinese surname and was denied. The Constitutional Court ruled that the law, as written, was a violation of gender equality guaranteed by Article 7 of the Constitution, since children in Taiwan usually take their father's surname, which in practice, meant that indigenous status could be acquired via paternal descent, but not maternal descent.^[75]

History of the aboriginal peoples[edit]

A map showing the migration of the Austronesians out of Taiwan from c. 3000 BC

A Plains Aboriginal child and woman by Paul Ibis, 1877

Indigenous Taiwanese are Austronesian peoples, with linguistic and genetic ties to other Austronesian ethnic groups, such as peoples of the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Madagascar, and Oceania.^[76]^[77] Chipped-pebble tools dating from perhaps as early as 15,000 years ago suggest that the initial human inhabitants of Taiwan were Paleolithic cultures of the Pleistocene era. These people survived by eating marine life. Archeological evidence points to an abrupt change to the Neolithic era around 6,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture, domestic animals, polished stone adzes and pottery. The stone adzes were mass-produced on Penghu and nearby islands, from the volcanic rock found there. This suggests heavy sea traffic took place between these islands and Taiwan at this time.^[78]

From around 5000 to 1500 BC, Taiwanese aborigines started a seaborne migration to the island of Luzon in the Philippines, intermingling with the older Negrito populations of the islands. This was the beginning of the Austronesian expansion. They spread throughout the rest of the Philippines and eventually migrated further to the other islands of Southeast Asia, Micronesia, Island Melanesia, Polynesia, and Madagascar. Taiwan is the homeland of the Austronesian languages.^[5]^[79]^[80]^[81]^[82]

There is evidence that indigenous Taiwanese continued trading with the Philippines in the Sa Huynh-Kalanay Interaction Sphere. Eastern Taiwan was the source of jade for the lingling-o jade industry in the Philippines and the Sa Huỳnh culture of Vietnam.^[83]^[84]^[85]^[86] This trading network began between the animist communities of Taiwan and the Philippines which later became the Maritime Jade Road, one of the most extensive sea-based trade networks of a single geological material in the prehistoric world. It was in existence for 3,000 years from 2000 BCE to 1000 CE.^[87]^[88]^[89]^[90]

Recorded history of the indigenous peoples in Taiwan began around the 17th century, and has often been dominated by the views and policies of foreign powers and non-aborigines. Beginning with the arrival of Dutch merchants in 1624, the traditional lands of the aborigines have been successively colonized by Dutch, Spanish, Ming, Qing dynasty, Japanese, and Republic of China rulers. Each of these successive "civilizing" cultural centers participated in violent conflict and peaceful economic interaction with both the Plains and Mountain indigenous groups. To varying degrees, they influenced or transformed the culture and language of the indigenous peoples.^{[citation needed]}

Four centuries of non-indigenous rule can be viewed through several changing periods of governing power and shifting official policy toward aborigines. From the 17th century until the early 20th, the impact of the foreign settlers—the Dutch, Spanish, and Han—was more extensive on the Plains peoples. They were far more geographically accessible than the Mountain peoples, and thus had more dealings with the foreign powers. The reactions of indigenous people to imperial power show not only acceptance, but also incorporation or resistance through their cultural practices ^[91]^[92]

By the beginning of the 20th century, the Plains peoples had largely been assimilated into contemporary Taiwanese culture as a result of European and Han colonial rule. Until the latter half of the Japanese colonial era the Mountain peoples were not entirely governed by any non-indigenous polity. However, the mid-1930s marked a shift in the intercultural dynamic, as the Japanese began to play a far more dominant role in the culture of the Highland groups. This increased degree of control over the Mountain peoples continued during Kuomintang rule. Within these two broad eras, there were many differences in the individual and regional impact of the colonizers and their "civilizing projects". At times the foreign powers were accepted readily, as some communities adopted foreign clothing styles and cultural practices (Harrison 2003), and engaged in cooperative trade in goods such as camphor, deer hides, sugar, tea, and rice.^[93] At numerous other times changes from the outside world were forcibly imposed.

Much of the historical information regarding Taiwan's indigenous population was collected by these regimes in the form of administrative reports and gazettes as part of greater "civilizing" projects. The collection of information aided in the consolidation of administrative control.^{[citation needed]}

Plains aboriginals[edit]

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 1,500 people, surrounded by smaller satellite villages.^[94] Siraya villages were constructed of dwellings made of thatch and bamboo, raised 2 m (6.6 ft) 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 peoples. 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 community. The third ring was for exclusive hunting and deer fields for community use. The Plains Aborigines hunted herds of spotted Formosan sika deer, Formosan sambar deer and Reeves's muntjac as well as conducting light millet farming. Sugar and rice were grown as well, but mostly for use in preparing wine.^[95]

Many of the Plains Aborigines were matrilineal/matrifocal societies. A man married into a woman's family after a courtship period during which the woman was free to reject as many men as she wished. 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-30s, 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.^[96] 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 priestesses or mediums to the gods.

For centuries, Taiwan's aboriginal peoples experienced economic competition and military conflict with a series of colonizing peoples. Centralized government policies designed to foster language shift and cultural assimilation, as well as continued contact with the colonizers through trade, intermarriage and other dispassionate intercultural processes, have resulted in varying degrees of language death and loss of original cultural identity. For example, of the approximately 26 known languages of the Taiwanese aborigines (collectively referred to as the Formosan languages), at least ten are extinct, five are moribund^[8] and several are to some degree endangered. These languages are of unique historical significance, since most historical linguists consider Taiwan to be the original homeland of the Austronesian language family.^[5]

European period (1623–1662)[edit]

Under Dutch rule[edit]

The opening paragraphs of the Gospel of Matthew in bilingual parallel format, from the first half of the 17th century, in the Dutch and Sinckan languages. (Campbell & Gravius (1888). The Gospel of St. Matthew in Formosan)

During the European period (1623–1662) soldiers and traders representing the Dutch East India Company maintained a colony in southwestern Taiwan (1624–1662) near present-day Tainan. This established an Asian base for triangular trade between the company, the Qing dynasty and Japan, with the hope of interrupting Portuguese and Spanish trading alliances with China. The Spanish also established a small colony in northern Taiwan (1626–1642) in present-day Keelung. However, Spanish influence wavered almost from the beginning, so that by the late 1630s they had already withdrawn most of their troops.^[97] After they were driven out of Taiwan by a combined Dutch and aboriginal force in 1642, the Spanish "had little effect on Taiwan's history".^[98] Dutch influence was far more significant: expanding to the southwest and north of the island, they set up a tax system and established schools and churches in many villages.

When the Dutch arrived in 1624 at Tayouan (Anping) Harbor, Siraya-speaking representatives from nearby Saccam village soon appeared at the Dutch stockade to barter and trade; an overture which was readily welcomed by the Dutch. The Sirayan villages were, however, divided into warring factions: the village of Sinckan (Sinshih) was at war with Mattau (Madou) and its ally Baccluan, while the village of Soulang maintained uneasy neutrality. In 1629 a Dutch expeditionary force searching for Han pirates was massacred by warriors from Mattau, and the victory inspired other villages to rebel.^[99] In 1635, with reinforcements having arrived from Batavia (now Jakarta, Indonesia), the Dutch subjugated and burned Mattau. Since Mattau was the most powerful village in the area, the victory brought a spate of peace offerings from other nearby villages, many of which were outside the Siraya area. This was the beginning of Dutch consolidation over large parts of Taiwan, which brought an end to centuries of inter-village warfare.^[100] The new period of peace allowed the Dutch to construct schools and churches aimed to acculturate and convert the indigenous population.^[101]^[102] Dutch schools taught a romanized script (Sinckan writing), which transcribed the Siraya language. This script maintained occasional use through the 18th century.^[103] Today only fragments survive, in documents and stone stele markers. The schools also served to maintain alliances and open aboriginal areas for Dutch enterprise and commerce.

The Dutch soon found trade in deerskins and venison in the East Asian market to be a lucrative endeavor^[104] and recruited Plains Aborigines to procure the hides. The deer trade attracted the first Han traders to aboriginal villages, but as early as 1642 the demand for deer greatly diminished the deer stocks. This drop significantly reduced the prosperity of aboriginal peoples,^[105] forcing many aborigines to take up farming to counter the economic impact of losing their most vital food source.

Taiwanese aborigines depicted in Olfert Dapper (1670): Gedenkwaerdig bedryf

As the Dutch began subjugating indigenous villages in the south and west of Taiwan, increasing numbers of Han immigrants looked to exploit areas that were fertile and rich in game. The Dutch initially encouraged this, since the Han were skilled in agriculture and large-scale hunting. Several Han took up residence in Siraya villages. The Dutch used Han agents to collect taxes, hunting license fees and other income. This set up a society in which "many of the colonists were Han Chinese but the military and the administrative structures were Dutch".^[106] Despite this, local alliances transcended ethnicity during the Dutch period. For example, the Guo Huaiyi Rebellion in 1652, a Han farmers' uprising, was defeated by an alliance of 120 Dutch musketeers with the aid of Han loyalists and 600 aboriginal warriors.^[107]

Multiple Aboriginal villages in frontier areas rebelled against the Dutch in the 1650s due to oppression such as when the Dutch ordered indigenous women for sex, deer pelts, and rice be given to them from aborigines in the Taipei Basin in Wu-lao-wan village which sparked a rebellion in December 1652 at the same time as the Chinese rebellion. Two Dutch translators were beheaded by the Wu-lao-wan aborigines and in a subsequent fight, 30 indigenes and another two Dutch people died. After an embargo of salt and iron on Wu-lao-wan, the indigenous people were forced to sue for peace in February 1653.^[108]

However, the Taiwanese Aboriginal peoples who were previously allied with the Dutch against the Chinese during the Guo Huaiyi Rebellion in 1652 turned against the Dutch during the later Siege of Fort Zeelandia and defected to Koxinga's Chinese forces.^[109] The Aboriginals (Formosans) of Sincan defected to Koxinga after he offered them amnesty; the Sincan Aboriginals then proceeded to work for the Chinese and behead Dutch people in executions while the frontier aboriginals in the mountains and plains also surrendered and defected to the Chinese on 17 May 1661, celebrating their freedom from compulsory education under the Dutch rule by hunting down Dutch people and beheading them and trashing their Christian school textbooks.^[110] Koxinga formulated a plan to give oxen and farming tools and teach farming techniques to the indigenous people, giving them Ming gowns and caps, eating with their chiefs and gifting tobacco to Aboriginals who were gathered in crowds to meet and welcome him as he visited their villages after he defeated the Dutch.^[111]

The Dutch period ended in 1662 when Ming loyalist forces of Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga) drove out the Dutch and established the short-lived Zheng family kingdom on Taiwan. The Zhengs brought 70,000 soldiers to Taiwan and immediately began clearing large tracts of land to support its forces. Despite the preoccupation with fighting the Qing, the Zheng family was concerned with indigenous welfare on Taiwan. The Zhengs built alliances, collected taxes and erected aboriginal schools, where Taiwan's indigenes were first introduced to the Confucian Classics and Chinese writing.^[112] However, the impact of the Dutch was deeply ingrained in indigenous society. In the 19th and 20th centuries, European explorers wrote of being welcomed as kin by the aborigines who thought they were the Dutch, who had promised to return.^[113]

Qing dynasty rule (1683–1895)[edit]

A photograph of an aboriginal hunting party with their Formosan Mountain Dog in Ba̍k-sa, by John Thomson, 1871: "A Native Hunting Party Baksa Formosa 1871" 木柵原住民的狩獵祭典.

Quarantine policies[edit]

After the Qing dynasty government defeated the Ming loyalist forces maintained by the Zheng family in 1683, Taiwan became increasingly integrated into the Qing dynasty.^[114] Qing forces ruled areas of Taiwan's highly populated western plain for over two centuries, until 1895. This era was characterized by a marked increase in the number of Han Chinese on Taiwan, continued social unrest, the piecemeal transfer (by various means) of large amounts of land from the aborigines to the Han, and the nearly complete acculturation of the Western Plains Aborigines to Chinese Han customs.

During the Qing dynasty's two-century rule over Taiwan, the population of Han on the island increased dramatically. However, it is not clear to what extent this was due to an influx of Han settlers, who were predominantly displaced young men from Zhangzhou and Quanzhou in Fujian province,^[115] or from a variety of other factors, including: frequent intermarriage between Han and aborigines, the replacement of aboriginal marriage and abortion taboos, and the widespread adoption of the Han agricultural lifestyle due to the depletion of traditional game stocks, which may have led to increased birth rates and population growth. Moreover, the acculturation of aborigines in increased numbers may have intensified the perception of a swell in the number of Han.

The Qing government officially sanctioned controlled Han settlement, but sought to manage tensions between the various regional and ethnic groups. Therefore, it often recognized the Plains peoples' claims to deer fields and traditional territory.^[116]^[117] The Qing authorities hoped to turn the Plains peoples into loyal subjects, and adopted the head and corvée taxes on the aborigines, which made the Plains Aborigines directly responsible for payment to the government yamen. The attention paid by the Qing authorities to aboriginal land rights was part of a larger administrative goal to maintain a level of peace on the turbulent Taiwan frontier, which was often marred by ethnic and regional conflict.^[118] The frequency of rebellions, riots, and civil strife in Qing dynasty Taiwan is often encapsulated in the saying "every three years an uprising; every five years a rebellion".^[119]

In 1723, aborigines living in Dajiaxi village along the central coastal plain rebelled. Government troops from southern Taiwan were sent to put down this revolt, but in their absence, Han settlers in Fengshan County rose up in revolt under the leadership of Wu Fusheng, a settler from Zhangzhou.^[120] Aboriginal participation in major revolts during the Qing era, including the Taokas-led Ta-Chia-hsi revolt of 1731–1732, ensured the Plains peoples would remain an important factor in crafting Qing frontier policy until the end of Qing rule in 1895.^[121] By 1732, five different ethnic groups were in revolt but the rebellion was defeated by the end of the year.^[120]

The struggle over land resources was one source of conflict. Large areas of the western plain were subject to large land rents called Huan Da Zu (番大租—literally, "Barbarian Big Rent"), a category which remained until the period of Japanese colonization. The large tracts of deer field, guaranteed by the Qing, were owned by the communities and their individual members. The communities would commonly offer Han farmers a permanent patent for use, while maintaining ownership (skeleton) of the subsoil (田骨), which was called "two lords to a field" (一田兩主). The Plains peoples were often cheated out of land or pressured to sell at unfavorable rates. Some disaffected subgroups moved to central or eastern Taiwan, but most remained in their ancestral locations and acculturated or assimilated into Han society.^[122]^{[page needed]} Despite this, the vast majority of rebellions did not originate from indigenous peoples but the Han settlers, and the mountain aborigines were left to their own devices until the last 20 years of Qing rule.^[123] During the Qianlong period (1735-1796), the 93 shufan acculturated aborigine villages never rebelled and over 200 non-acculturated aboriginal villages submitted.^[124]

During the reigns of the Kangxi (r. 1661–1722), Yongzheng (r. 1722–1735), and Qianlong (r. 1735–1796) emperors, the Qing court deliberately restricted the expansion of territory and government administration in Taiwan. A government permit was required for settlers to go beyond the Dajia River at the mid-point of the western plains. In 1715, the governor-general of Fujian-Zhejiang recommended land reclamation in Taiwan but Kangxi was worried that this would cause instability and conflicts. By the time of Yongzheng's reign, the Qing extended control over the entire western plains, but this was to better control the settlers and maintain security. The quarantine policies were maintained. After the Zhu Yigui uprising which occurred in 1721, Lan Dingyuan, an advisor to Lan Tingzhen, who led forces against the rebellion, advocated for expansion and land reclamation to strengthen government control over the Chinese settlers. He wanted to convert the aborigines to Han culture and turn them into subjects of the Qing. However, the Qianlong Emperor kept the administrative structure of Taiwan largely unchanged and in 1744, he dismissed recommendations by officials to allow settlers to claim land.^[125]

Qing classification of indigenous peoples[edit]

The Qing did little to administer the aborigines and rarely tried to subjugate or impose cultural change upon them. Aborigines were classified into two general categories: acculturated aborigines (shufan) and non-acculturated aborigines (shengfan). Sheng is a word used to describe uncooked food, unworked land, unripened-fruit, unskilled labor or strangers, while shu bears the opposite meaning. To the Qing, shufan were aborigines who paid taxes, performed corvée, and had adopted Han Chinese culture to some degree. When the Qing annexed Taiwan, there were 46 aboriginal villages under government control: 12 in Fengshan and 34 in Zhuluo. These were likely inherited from the Zheng regime. In the Yongzheng period, 108 aboriginal villages submitted as a result of encouragement and enticement from the Taiwan regional commander, Lin Liang. Shengfan who paid taxes but did not perform corvée and did not practice Han Chinese culture were called guihua shengfan (submitted non-acculturated aborigines).^[126]

The Qianlong administration forbade enticing aborigines to submit due to fear of conflict. In the early Qianlong period, there were 299 named aboriginal villages. Records show 93 shufan villages and 61 guihua shengfan villages. The number of shufan villages remained stable throughout the Qianlong period. Two aboriginal affairs sub-prefects were appointed to manage aboriginal affairs in 1766. One was in charge of the north and the other in charge of the south, both focused on the plains aborigines. Boundaries were built to keep the mountain aborigines out of settlement areas. The policy of marking settler boundaries and segregating them from aboriginal territories became official policy in 1722 in response to the Zhu Yigui uprising. Fifty-four stelae were used to mark crucial points along the settler-aboriginal boundary. Han settlers were forbidden from crossing into aboriginal territory but settler encroachment continued, and the boundaries were rebuilt in 1750, 1760, 1784, and 1790. Settlers were forbidden from marrying aborigines as marriage was one way settlers obtained land. While the settlers drove colonization and acculturation, the Qing policy of quarantine dented the impact on aborigines, especially mountain aborigines.^[127]

Settler expansion[edit]

Although Qing quarantine policies were maintained in the early 19th century, attitudes towards aboriginal territories started to shift. Local officials repeatedly advocated for the colonization of aboriginal territories, especially in the cases of Gamalan and Shuishalian. The Gamalan or Kavalan people were situated in modern Yilan County in northeastern Taiwan. It was separated from the western plains and Tamsui (Danshui) by mountains. There were 36 aboriginal villages in the area and the Kavalan people had started paying taxes as early as the Kangxi period (r. 1661–1722), but they were non-acculturated guihua shengfan aborigines.^[128]

In 1787, a Chinese settler named Wu Sha tried to reclaim land in Gamalan but was defeated by aborigines. The next year, the Tamsui sub-prefect convinced the Taiwan prefect, Yang Tingli, to support Wu Sha. Yang recommended subjugating the natives and opening Gamalan for settlement to the Fujian governor but the governor refused to act due to fear of conflict. In 1797, a new Tamsui sub-prefect issued permit and financial support for Wu to recruit settlers for land reclamation, which was illegal. Wu's successors were unable to register the reclaimed land on government registers. Local officials supported land reclamation but could not officially recognize it.^[129]

In 1806 it was reported that a pirate, Cai Qian, was within the vicinity of Gamalan. Taiwan Prefect Yang once again recommended opening up Gamalan, arguing that to abandon it would cause trouble on the frontier. Later another pirate band tried to occupy Gamalan. Yang recommended to the Fuzhou General Saichong'a the establishment of administration and land surveys in Gamalan. Saichong'a initially refused but then changed his mind and sent a memorial to the emperor in 1808 recommending the incorporation of Gamalan. The issue was discussed by the central government officials and for the first time, one official went on record saying that if aboriginal territory was incorporated, not only would it end the pirate threat but the government would stand to profit from the land itself. In 1809, the emperor ordered for Gamalan to be incorporated. The next year an imperial decree for the formal incorporation of Gamalan was issued and a Gamalan sub-prefect was appointed.^[130]

Unlike Gamalan, debates on Shuishalian resulted in its continued status as a closed-off area. Shuishalian refers to the upstream areas of the Zhuoshui River and Wu River in central Taiwan. The inner mountain area of Shuishalian was inhabited by 24 aboriginal villages and six of them occupied the flat and fertile basin area. The aboriginals had submitted as early as 1693 but they remained non-acculturated. In 1814, some settlers were able to obtain reclamation permits through fabricating aboriginal land lease requests. In 1816, the government sent troops to evict the settlers and destroy their strongholds. Stelae were erected demarcating the land forbidden to Chinese settlers.^[131]

Local officials advocated for supporting colonization efforts into the mid-1800s but their recommendations were ignored.^[132]

Migration to highlands[edit]

One popular narrative holds that all of the Gaoshan peoples were originally Plains peoples, which fled to the mountains under pressure from Han encroachment. This strong version of the "migration" theory has been largely discounted by contemporary research as the Gaoshan people demonstrate a physiology, material cultures and customs that have been adapted for life at higher elevations. Linguistic, archeological, and recorded anecdotal evidence also suggests there has been island-wide migration of indigenous peoples for over 3,000 years.^[133]

Small sub-groups of Plains Aborigines may have occasionally fled to the mountains, foothills or eastern plain to escape hostile groups of Han or other aborigines.^[134]^[135] The "displacement scenario" is more likely rooted in the older customs of many Plains groups to withdraw into the foothills during headhunting season or when threatened by a neighboring village, as observed by the Dutch during their punitive campaign of Mattou in 1636 when the bulk of the village retreated to Tevorangh.^[136]^[137]^[138] The "displacement scenario" may also stem from the inland migrations of Plains Aborigine subgroups, who were displaced by either Han or other Plains Aborigines and chose to move to the Iilan plain in 1804, the Puli basin in 1823 and another Puli migration in 1875. Each migration consisted of a number of families and totaled hundreds of people, not entire communities.^[139]^[140] There are also recorded oral histories that recall some Plains Aborigines were sometimes captured and killed by Highlands peoples while relocating through the mountains.^[141] However, as Shepherd (1993) explained in detail, documented evidence shows that the majority of Plains people remained on the plains, intermarried Hakka and Hoklo immigrants from Fujian and Guangdong, and adopted a Han identity.

Colonization in reaction to crises[edit]

In 1874, Japan invaded aboriginal territory in southern Taiwan in what is known as the Mudan Incident (Japanese invasion of Taiwan (1874)). For six months Japanese soldiers occupied southern Taiwan and Japan argued that it was not part of the Qing dynasty. The result was the payment of an indemnity by the Qing in return for the Japanese army's withdrawal.^[142]

The imperial commissioner for Taiwan, Shen Baozhen, argued that "the reason that Taiwan is being coveted by [Japan] is that the land is too empty."^[143] He recommended subjugating the aborigines and populating their territory with Chinese settlers. As a result, the administration of Taiwan was expanded and campaigns against the aborigines were launched. The two sub-prefects responsible for aboriginal affairs were moved to inner Shushalian (Puli) and eastern Taiwan (Beinan), the focal points for colonization. Starting in 1874, mountain roads were built to make the region more accessible and aborigines were brought into formal submission to the Qing. In 1875, the ban on entering Taiwan was lifted.^[143] In 1877, 21 guidelines on subjugating aborigines and opening the mountains were issued. Agencies for recruiting settlers were established on the coastal mainland and in Hong Kong. However efforts to promote settlement in Taiwan petered out soon after.^[144]

Efforts to settle in aboriginal territories were renewed under the governance of Liu Mingchuan after the Sino-French War ended in 1885.^[145] However few settlers went to Taiwan and those that did were accosted by aborigines and the harsh climate. Governor Liu was criticized for the high cost and little gain from the colonization activities. Liu resigned in 1891 and the colonization efforts ceased.^[146]

A Taiwan Pacification and Reclamation Head Office was established with eight pacification and reclamation bureaus. Four bureaus were located in eastern Taiwan, two in Puli (inner Shuishalian), one in the north, and one on the western border of the mountains. By 1887, about 500 aboriginal villages, or roughly 90,000 aborigines had formally submitted to Qing rule. This number increased to 800 villages with 148,479 aborigines over the following years. However the cost of getting them to submit was exorbitant. The Qing offered them materials and paid village chiefs monthly allowances. Not all the aborigines were under effective control and land reclamation in eastern Taiwan occurred at a slow pace.^[146] From 1884 to 1891, Liu launched more than 40 military campaigns against the aborigines with 17,500 soldiers. A third of the invasion force was killed or disabled in the conflict, amounting to a costly failure.^[147]

By the end of the Qing period, the western plains were fully developed as farmland with about 2.5 million Chinese settlers. The mountainous areas were still largely autonomous under the control of aborigines. Aboriginal land loss under the Qing occurred at a relatively slow pace compared to the following Japanese colonial period due to the absence of state sponsored land deprivation for the majority of Qing rule.^[148]^[149] In the 50-year period of Japanese rule that followed, the Taiwanese aborigines lost their right to legal ownership of land and were confined to small reserves one-eighth the size of their ancestral lands.^[150] However even had Japan not taken over Taiwan, the plains aborigines were on the way to losing their residual rights to land. By the last years of Qing rule, most of the plains aborigines had been acculturated to Han culture, around 20-30% could speak their mother tongues, and gradually lost their land ownership and rent collection rights.^[151]

Highland peoples[edit]

Bunun mother and child in sling in Lona Village, Nantou County, Taiwan

Imperial Chinese and European societies had little contact with the Highland aborigines until expeditions to the region by European and American explorers and missionaries commenced in the 19th and early 20th centuries.^[152]^[153] The lack of data before this was primarily the result of a Qing quarantine on the region to the east of the "earth oxen" (土牛) border, which ran along the eastern edge of the western plain. Han contact with the mountain peoples was usually associated with the enterprise of gathering and extracting camphor from Camphor Laurel trees (Cinnamomum camphora), native to the island and in particular the mountainous areas. The production and shipment of camphor (used in herbal medicines and mothballs) was then a significant industry on the island, lasting up to and including the period of Japanese rule.^[154] These early encounters often involved headhunting parties from the Highland peoples, who sought out and raided unprotected Han forest workers. Together with traditional Han concepts of Taiwanese behavior, these raiding incidents helped to promote the Qing-era popular image of the "violent" aborigine.^[155]

Taiwanese Plains Aborigines were often employed and dispatched as interpreters to assist in the trade of goods between Han merchants and Highlands aborigines. The indigenous people traded cloth, pelts and meat for iron and matchlock rifles. Iron was a necessary material for the fabrication of hunting knives—long, curved sabers that were generally used as a forest tool. These blades became notorious among Han settlers, given their alternative use to decapitate Highland indigenous enemies in customary headhunting expeditions.^{[citation needed]}

Headhunting[edit]

Every tribe except the Tao people of Orchid Island practiced headhunting, which was a symbol of bravery and valor.^[156] Men who did not take heads could not cross the rainbow bridge into the spirit world upon death as per the religion of Gaya. Each tribe has its own origin story for the tradition of headhunting but the theme is similar across tribes. After the great flood, headhunting originated due to boredom (South Tsou Sa'arua, Paiwan), to improve tribal singing (Ali Mountain Tsou), as a form of population control (Atayal, Taroko, Bunun), simply for amusement and fun (Rukai, Tsou, Puyuma) or particularly for the fun and excitement of killing intellectually disabled individuals (Amis). Once the victims had been decapitated and displayed the heads were boiled and left to dry, often hanging from trees or displayed on slate shelves referred to as "skull racks". A party returning with a head was cause for celebration, as it was believed to bring good luck and the spiritual power of the slaughtered individual was believed to transfer into the headhunter. If the head was that of a woman it was even better because it meant she could not bear children. The Bunun people would often take prisoners and inscribe prayers or messages to their dead on arrows, then shoot their prisoner with the hope their prayers would be carried to the dead. Taiwanese Hoklo Han settlers and Japanese were often the victims of headhunting raids as they were considered by the aborigines to be liars and enemies. A headhunting raid would often strike at workers in the fields, or set a dwelling alight and then decapitate the inhabitants as they fled the burning structure. It was also customary to later raise the victim's surviving children as full members of the community. Often the heads themselves were ceremonially 'invited' to join the community as members, where they were supposed to watch over the community and keep them safe. The indigenous inhabitants of Taiwan accepted the convention and practice of headhunting as one of the calculated risks of community life. The last groups to practice headhunting were the Paiwan, Bunun, and Atayal groups.^[157] Japanese rule ended the practice by 1930, (though Japanese were not subject to this regulation and continued to headhunt their enemies throughout World War II) and as late as 2003 there are elder Taiwanese that could recall the practice firsthand.^[158]

Japanese rule (1895–1945)[edit]

Takasago Volunteers as Imperial Japanese Army corps during World War II

When the Treaty of Shimonoseki was finalized on 17 April 1895, Taiwan was ceded by the Qing Empire to Japan.^[159] Taiwan's incorporation into the Japanese political orbit brought Taiwanese aborigines into contact with a new colonial structure, determined to define and locate indigenous people within the framework of a new, multi-ethnic empire.^[160] The means of accomplishing this goal took three main forms: anthropological study of the natives of Taiwan, attempts to reshape the aborigines in the mold of the Japanese, and military suppression. The Aboriginals and Han joined to violently revolt against Japanese rule in the 1907 Beipu Uprising and 1915 Tapani Incident.

Colorized photograph of an Amis couple in traditional clothing. Taken in pre-World War II Japanese-ruled Taiwan.

Japan's sentiment regarding indigenous peoples was crafted around the memory of the Mudan Incident, when, in 1871, a group of 54 shipwrecked Ryūkyūan sailors was massacred by a Paiwan group from the village of Mudan in southern Taiwan. The resulting Japanese policy, published twenty years before the onset of their rule on Taiwan, cast Taiwanese aborigines as "vicious, violent and cruel" and concluded "this is a pitfall of the world; we must get rid of them all".^[161] Japanese campaigns to gain aboriginal submission were often brutal, as evidenced in the desire of Japan's first Governor General, Kabayama Sukenori, to "...conquer the barbarians" (Kleeman 2003:20). The Seediq Aboriginals fought against the Japanese in multiple battles such as the Xincheng incident (新城事件), Truku battle (太魯閣之役) (Taroko),^[162] 1902 Renzhiguan incident (人止關事件), and the 1903 Zimeiyuan incident (姊妹原事件). In the Musha Incident of 1930, for example, a Seediq group was decimated by artillery and supplanted by the Taroko (Truku), which had sustained periods of bombardment from naval ships and airplanes dropping mustard gas. A quarantine was placed around the mountain areas enforced by armed guard stations and electrified fences until the most remote high mountain villages could be relocated closer to administrative control.^[163]

A divide and rule policy was formulated with Japan trying to play Aboriginals and Han against each other to their own benefit when Japan alternated between fighting the two with Japan first fighting Han and then fighting Aboriginals.^[164] Nationalist Japanese claim Aboriginals were treated well by Kabayama.^[165] unenlightened and stubbornly stupid were the words used to describe Aboriginals by Kabayama Sukenori.^[166] A hardline anti Aboriginal position aimed at the destruction of their civilization was implemented by Fukuzawa Yukichi.^[167] The most tenacioius opposition was mounted by the Bunan and Atayal against the Japanese during the brutal mountain war in 1913–14 under Sakuma. Aboriginals continued to fight against the Japanese after 1915.^[168] Aboriginals were subjected to military takeover and assimilation.^[169] In order to exploit camphor resources, the Japanese fought against the Bngciq Atayal in 1906 and expelled them.^[170]^[171] The war is called "Camphor War" (樟腦戰爭).^[172]^[173]

The Bunun Aboriginals under Chief Raho Ari (or Dahu Ali, 拉荷·阿雷, lāhè āléi) engaged in guerilla warfare against the Japanese for twenty years. Raho Ari's revolt was sparked when the Japanese implemented a gun control policy in 1914 against the Aboriginals in which their rifles were impounded in police stations when hunting expeditions were over. The Dafen incident w:zh:大分事件 began at Dafen when a police platoon was slaughtered by Raho Ari's clan in 1915. A settlement holding 266 people called Tamaho was created by Raho Ari and his followers near the source of the Laonong River and attracted more Bunun rebels to their cause. Raho Ari and his followers captured bullets and guns and slew Japanese in repeated hit and run raids against Japanese police stations by infiltrating over the Japanese "guardline" of electrified fences and police stations as they pleased.^[174]

The 1930 "New Flora and Silva, Volume 2" said of the mountain Aboriginals that the "majority of them live in a state of war against Japanese authority".^[175] The Bunun and Atayal were described as the "most ferocious" Aboriginals, and police stations were targeted by Aboriginals in intermittent assaults.^[176] By January 1915, all Aboriginals in northern Taiwan were forced to hand over their guns to the Japanese, however head hunting and assaults on police stations by Aboriginals still continued after that year.^[176]^[177] Between 1921 and 1929 Aboriginal raids died down, but a major revival and surge in Aboriginal armed resistance erupted from 1930 to 1933 for four years during which the Musha Incident occurred and Bunun carried out raids, after which armed conflict again died down.^[178] According to a 1933-year book, wounded people in the Japanese war against the Aboriginals numbered around 4,160, with 4,422 civilians dead and 2,660 military personnel killed.^[179] According to a 1935 report, 7,081 Japanese were killed in the armed struggle from 1896 to 1933 while the Japanese confiscated 29,772 Aboriginal guns by 1933.^[180]

Seediq Aboriginal rebels beheaded by Japanese aboriginal allies, in 1931 during the Musha Incident

Beginning in the first year of Japanese rule, the colonial government embarked on a mission to study the aborigines so they could be classified, located and "civilized". The Japanese "civilizing project", partially fueled by public demand in Japan to know more about the empire, would be used to benefit the Imperial government by consolidating administrative control over the entire island, opening up vast tracts of land for exploitation.^[181] To satisfy these needs, "the Japanese portrayed and catalogued Taiwan's indigenous peoples in a welter of statistical tables, magazine and newspaper articles, photograph albums for popular consumption".^[182] The Japanese-based much of their information and terminology on prior Qing era narratives concerning degrees of "civilization".^[183]

Japanese ethnographer Ino Kanori was charged with the task of surveying the entire population of Taiwanese aborigines, applying the first systematic study of aborigines on Taiwan. Ino's research is best known for his formalization of eight peoples of Taiwanese aborigines: Atayal, Bunun, Saisiat, Tsou, Paiwan, Puyuma, Ami and Pepo (Pingpu).^[184]^[185] This is the direct antecedent of the taxonomy used today to distinguish people groups that are officially recognized by the government.

Life under the Japanese changed rapidly as many of the traditional structures were replaced by a military power. Aborigines who wished to improve their status looked to education rather than headhunting as the new form of power. Those who learned to work with the Japanese and follow their customs would be better suited to lead villages. The Japanese encouraged aborigines to maintain traditional costumes and selected customs that were not considered detrimental to society, but invested much time and money in efforts to eliminate traditions deemed unsavory by Japanese culture, including tattooing.^[186] By the mid-1930s as Japan's empire was reaching its zenith, the colonial government began a political socialization program designed to enforce Japanese customs, rituals and a loyal Japanese identity upon the aborigines. By the end of World War II, aborigines whose fathers had been killed in pacification campaigns were volunteering to serve in Special Units and if need be die for the Emperor of Japan.^[187] The Japanese colonial experience left an indelible mark on many older aborigines who maintained an admiration for the Japanese long after their departure in 1945.^[188]

The Japanese troops used Aboriginal women as sex slaves, so called "comfort women".^[189]

Kuomintang single-party rule (1945–1987)[edit]

Japanese rule of Taiwan ended in 1945, following the armistice with the allies on September 2 and the subsequent appropriation of the island by the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, or KMT) on October 25. In 1949, on losing the Chinese Civil War to the Chinese Communist Party, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek led the Kuomintang in a retreat from mainland China, withdrawing its government and 1.3 million refugees to Taiwan. The KMT installed an authoritarian form of government and shortly thereafter inaugurated a number of political socialization programs aimed at nationalizing Taiwanese people as citizens of a Chinese nation and eradicating Japanese influence.^[190]

The KMT pursued highly centralized political and cultural policies rooted in the party's decades-long history of fighting warlordism in China and opposing competing concepts of a loose federation following the demise of the imperial Qing.^[53] The project was designed to create a strong national Chinese cultural identity (as defined by the state) at the expense of local cultures.^[191] Following the February 28 Incident in 1947, the Kuomintang placed Taiwan under martial law, which was to last for nearly four decades.

Taiwanese aborigines first encountered the Nationalist government in 1946, when the Japanese village schools were replaced by schools of the KMT. Documents from the Education Office show an emphasis on Chinese language, history and citizenship — with a curriculum steeped in pro-KMT ideology. Some elements of the curriculum, such as the Wu Feng Legend, are currently considered offensive to aborigines.^[192] Much of the burden of educating the aborigines was undertaken by unqualified teachers, who could, at best, speak Mandarin and teach basic ideology.^[193] In 1951 a major political socialization campaign was launched to change the lifestyle of many aborigines, to adopt Han customs. A 1953 government report on mountain areas stated that its aims were chiefly to promote Mandarin to strengthen a national outlook and create good customs. This was included in the Shandi Pingdi Hua (山地平地化) policy to "make the mountains like the plains".^[194]

Critics of the KMT's program for a centralized national culture regard it as institutionalized ethnic discrimination, point to the loss of several indigenous languages and a perpetuation of shame for being an aborigine. Hsiau noted that Taiwan's first democratically elected President, Li Teng-Hui, said in a famous interview: "... In the period of Japanese colonialism a Taiwanese would be punished by being forced to kneel out in the sun for speaking Tai-yü." [a dialect of Min Nan, which is not a Formosan language].^[195]

The pattern of intermarriage continued, as many KMT soldiers married aboriginal women who were from poorer areas and could be easily bought as wives.^[194] Modern studies show a high degree of genetic intermixing. Despite this, many contemporary Taiwanese are unwilling to entertain the idea of having an aboriginal heritage. In a 1994 study, it was found that 71% of the families surveyed would object to their daughter marrying an aboriginal man. For much of the KMT era the government definition of aboriginal identity had been 100% aboriginal parentage, leaving any intermarriage resulting in a non-aboriginal child. Later the policy was adjusted to the ethnic status of the father determining the status of the child.^[196]

Transition to democracy[edit]

Authoritarian rule under the Kuomintang ended gradually through a transition to democracy, which was marked by the lifting of martial law in 1987. Soon after, the KMT transitioned to being merely one party within a democratic system, though maintaining a high degree of power in aboriginal districts through an established system of patronage networks.^[197] The KMT continued to hold the reins of power for another decade under President Lee Teng-hui. However, they did so as an elected government rather than a dictatorial power. The elected KMT government supported many of the bills that had been promoted by aboriginal groups. The tenth amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of China also stipulates that the government would protect and preserve aboriginal culture and languages and also encourage them to participate in politics.^{[citation needed]}

During the period of political liberalization, which preceded the end of martial law, academic interest in the Plains Aborigines surged as amateur and professional historians sought to rediscover Taiwan's past. The opposition tang wai activists seized upon the new image of the Plains Aborigines as a means to directly challenge the KMT's official narrative of Taiwan as a historical part of China, and the government's assertion that Taiwanese were "pure" Han Chinese.^[198]^[199] Many tang wai activists framed the Plains aboriginal experience in the existing anti-colonialism/victimization Taiwanese nationalist narrative, which positioned the Hoklo-speaking Taiwanese in the role of indigenous people and the victims of successive foreign rulers.^[200]^[201]^[202]

By the late 1980s many Hoklo- and Hakka-speaking people began identifying themselves as Plains Aborigines, though any initial shift in ethnic consciousness from Hakka or Hoklo people was minor. Despite the politicized dramatization of the Plains Aborigines, their "rediscovery" as a matter of public discourse has had a lasting effect on the increased socio-political reconceptualization of Taiwan—emerging from a Han Chinese-dominant perspective into a wider acceptance of Taiwan as a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic community.^[203]

In many districts Taiwanese aborigines tend to vote for the Kuomintang, to the point that the legislative seats allocated to the aborigines are popularly described as iron votes for the pan-blue coalition. This may seem surprising in light of the focus of the pan-green coalition on promoting aboriginal culture as part of the Taiwanese nationalist discourse against the KMT. However, this voting pattern can be explained on economic grounds, and as part of an inter-ethnic power struggle waged in the electorate. Some aborigines see the rhetoric of Taiwan nationalism as favoring the majority Hoklo speakers rather than themselves. Aboriginal areas also tend to be poor and their economic vitality tied to the entrenched patronage networks established by the Kuomintang over the course of its fifty-five year reign.^[204]^[205]^[206]

Aborigines in the democratic era[edit]

A Bunun dancer in Lona, Nantou County, Taiwan

The democratic era has been a time of great change, both constructive and destructive, for the aborigines of Taiwan. Since the 1980s, increased political and public attention has been paid to the rights and social issues of the indigenous communities of Taiwan. Aborigines have realized gains in both the political and economic spheres. Though progress is ongoing, there remain a number of still unrealized goals within the framework of the ROC: "although certainly more 'equal' than they were 20, or even 10, years ago, the indigenous inhabitants in Taiwan still remain on the lowest rungs of the legal and socioeconomic ladders".^[34] On the other hand, bright spots are not hard to find. A resurgence in ethnic pride has accompanied the aboriginal cultural renaissance, which is exemplified by the increased popularity of aboriginal music and greater public interest in aboriginal culture.^[207]

Aboriginal political movement[edit]

The movement for indigenous cultural and political resurgence in Taiwan traces its roots to the ideals outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).^[208] Although the Republic of China was a UN member and signatory to the original UN Charter, four decades of martial law controlled the discourse of culture and politics on Taiwan. The political liberalization Taiwan experienced leading up to the official end of martial law on 15 July 1987, opened a new public arena for dissenting voices and political movements against the centralized policy of the KMT^{[citation needed]}.

In December 1984, the Taiwan Aboriginal People's Movement was launched when a group of aboriginal political activists, aided by the progressive Presbyterian Church in Taiwan (PCT),^[1] established the Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines (ATA, or yuan chuan hui) to highlight the problems experienced by indigenous communities all over Taiwan, including: prostitution, economic disparity, land rights and official discrimination in the form of naming rights.^[209]^[210]^[60]

In 1988, amid the ATA's Return Our Land Movement, in which aborigines demanded the return of lands to the original inhabitants, the ATA sent its first representative to the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations.^[211] Following the success in addressing the UN, the "Return Our Land" movement evolved into the Aboriginal Constitution Movement, in which the aboriginal representatives demanded appropriate wording in the ROC Constitution to ensure indigenous Taiwanese "dignity and justice" in the form of enhanced legal protection, government assistance to improve living standards in indigenous communities, and the right to identify themselves as "yuan chu min" (原住民), literally, "the people who lived here first," but more commonly, "aborigines".^[212] The KMT government initially opposed the term, due to its implication that other people on Taiwan, including the KMT government, were newcomers and not entitled to the island. The KMT preferred hsien chu min (先住民, "First people"), or tsao chu min (早住民, "Early People") to evoke a sense of general historical immigration to Taiwan.^[213]

Council of Indigenous Peoples

To some degree the movement has been successful. Beginning in 1998, the official curriculum in Taiwan schools has been changed to contain more frequent and favorable mention of aborigines. In 1996 the Council of Indigenous Peoples was promoted to a ministry-level rank within the Executive Yuan. The central government has taken steps to allow romanized spellings of aboriginal names on official documents, offsetting the long-held policy of forcing a Han name on an aborigine. A relaxed policy on identification now allows a child to choose their official designation if they are born to mixed aboriginal/Han parents.^{[citation needed]}

The present political leaders in the aboriginal community, led mostly by aboriginal elites born after 1949, have been effective in leveraging their ethnic identity and socio-linguistic acculturation into contemporary Taiwanese society against the political backdrop of a changing Taiwan.^[214] This has allowed indigenous people a means to push for greater political space, including the still unrealized prospect of Indigenous People's Autonomous Areas within Taiwan.^[215]^[34]^[41]

In February 2017, the Indigenous Ketagalan Boulevard Protest started in a bid for more official recognition of land as traditional territories.^{[citation needed]}

Aboriginal political representation[edit]

Aborigines were represented by eight members out of 225 seats in the Legislative Yuan. In 2008, the number of legislative seats was cut in half to 113, of which Taiwanese aborigines are represented by six members, three each for lowland and highland peoples.^[216] The tendency of Taiwanese aborigines to vote for members of the pan-blue coalition has been cited as having the potential to change the balance of the legislature. Citing these six seats in addition with five seats from smaller counties that also tend to vote pan-blue has been seen as giving the pan-blue coalition 11 seats before the first vote is counted.^[205]

The deep-rooted hostility between Aboriginals and (Taiwanese) Hoklo, and the Aboriginal communities' effective KMT networks, contribute to Aboriginal skepticism against the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Aboriginals tendency to vote for the KMT.^[217]

Aboriginals have criticized politicians for abusing the "indigenization" movement for political gains, such as aboriginal opposition to the DPP's "rectification" by recognizing the Taroko for political reasons, with the majority of mountain townships voting for Ma Ying-jeou.^[218] The Atayal and Seediq slammed the Truku for their name rectification.^[219]

In 2005 the Kuomintang displayed a massive photo of the anti-Japanese Aboriginal leader Mona Rudao at its headquarters in honor of the 60th anniversary of Taiwan's handover from Japan to the Republic of China.^[220]

Kao Chin Su-mei led Aboriginal legislators to protest against the Japanese at Yasukuni shrine.^[221]^[222]^[223]^[224]

The Taipei Times ran an editorial in 2008 that rejected the idea of an apology to the Aborigines, and rejected the idea of comparing Australian Aborigines' centuries of 'genocidal' suffering at the hands of White Australians to the suffering of Aborigines in Taiwan.^[225]

Aboriginals protested against the 14th Dalai Lama during his visit to Taiwan after Typhoon Morakot and denounced it as politically motivated.^[226]^[227]^[228]^[229]

In 2016, Aboriginal protestors criticized Tsai for not returning to Chen Shui-bian's New Partnership quasi-state relationship which she did not mention in her apology to the Aborigines. The location of the apology, the Japanese colonial administration's governor-general, as well as the Aborigines invited to the apology, who only counted officials rather than traditional leaders, were was also criticized. Aboriginal Transitional Justice Alliance president Kumu Hacyo described the apology as "a political show that was put on in an extremely bureaucratic fashion" lacking in sincerity and evasive in nature.^[230] In response to the "apology" ceremony held by Tsai, KMT Aboriginal lawmakers refused to attend.^[231] Aboriginals demanded that recompense from Tsai to accompany the apology.^[232]

The derogatory term "fan" (Chinese: 番) was often used against the Plains Aborigines by the Taiwanese. The Hoklo Taiwanese term was forced upon Aborigines like the Pazeh.^[233] In November 2016, a racist anti-Aboriginal slur was also used by Chiu Yi-ying, a DPP Taiwanese legislator,^[234] who said that the term meant "‘unreasonable people" and was meant to describe the actions of KMT lawmakers. KMT caucus whip Sufin Siluko accused Chiu of directing the term at himself and another Aboriginal KMT legislator.^[235]

According to Mr. Lupiliyan, a Paiwan man who has participated in exchange activities sponsored by the government, the current government is still a colonial establishment and is "using the colonized to protect its international position." However he believes that the main beneficiaries are still the Taiwanese indigenous people. Lupiliyan says that Austronesian diplomacy and international exchanges provide them with templates on how to revitalize their own culture.^[236]

Right to hunt[edit]

Hunting is a traditional way of life with cultural and religious significance to the indigenous Taiwanese, but the practice has been strictly regulated by the ROC government in the name of gun control and wildlife conservation. A Bunun hunter was arrested in 2013 for hunting protected animals with an illegally modified shotgun, and convicted in 2015, prompting political discourse over the indigenous right to hunt, conservation, and gun control. In 2021 the constitutional court ruled that the government has the right to regulate guns and the hunting of wildlife even in the context of indigenous hunting, but the regulations should be updated to accommodate the need of indigenous hunting. The indigenous community mostly disagreed with the ruling made only by Han Chinese judges.^[237]^[238] The Bunun hunter eventually received a presidential pardon,^[239] but the law is still not updated. ^[240]

Claimed admixture with Taiwanese Han[edit]

A study by Marie Lin in 2007 reported that the human leukocyte antigen typing study and mitochondrial DNA analysis demonstrated that 85% of the Taiwanese Han population had some degree of aboriginal origin.^[241] Other studies by Chen Shun-Shen state that 20% to 60%, and then more than 88% of Taiwanese Han have aboriginal blood. These studies were criticized by other researchers and refuted by subsequent genetic studies.^[242] However the idea that Taiwanese Han are a hybrid population genetically different from Chinese Han has been used as a basis for Taiwanese independence from China. This belief has been called the "myth of indigenous genes" by some researchers such as Shu-juo Chen and Hong-kuan Duan, who say that "genetic studies have never supported the idea that Taiwanese Han are genetically different with Chinese Han."^[243]

The idea that "We are all Aboriginal people" was initially welcomed by aboriginal leaders but has faced increasing opposition as it became viewed as a tool for Taiwanese independence. On 9 August 2005, a celebration for the constitutional reforms protecting aboriginal rights was held, during which Premier Frank Hsieh announced that he had an aboriginal great-grandmother and that "Now you shouldn't say: 'you are Aboriginal, I am not.' Everyone is Aboriginal."^[244] Descendants of plains aborigines have opposed the usage of their ancestors in the call for Taiwanese independence. Genetic studies show genetic differences between Taiwanese Han and mountain aborigines. According to Chen and Duan, the genetic ancestry of individuals cannot be traced with certainty and attempts to construct identity through genetics are "theoretically meaningless."^[243]

The Plains "Pingpu" aborigines of Taiwan criticized Lin's studies, which follows the "blood line theory" of Taiwanese nationalism. Alak Akatuang, secretary of the Pingpu Indigenous Peoples Cultural Association, said that the pan-green camp used the indigenous peoples to create a national identity for Taiwan, but the idea that Taiwanese people are not overwhelmingly descended from Han settlers is false. According to Akatuang, Taiwan's independence should not be founded on the idea of genetic lineages and these people who believe in the blood line theory "ignore scientific evidence because they want to believe they are different from China."^[245] This harmed the legitimacy of the Pingpu movement for recognition and reparations and was deeply insulting: "The Pingpu were the first of Taiwan's Indigenous peoples to face colonization. After the Han people came, they stole our land. They murdered our ancestors. Then after a few hundred years, they said we were the same people. Do you think a Pingpu person can accept this?"^[245]

In the highest self reports, 5.3 percent of Taiwan's population claimed indigenous heritage.^[242] Estimates of genetic indigenous ancestry reported by Lin range from 13%, 26%, and as high as 85%, the latter number being published in an editorial that was not peer-reviewed. These numbers have taken hold in popular Taiwanese imagination and sometimes treated as facts in Taiwanese politics and identity. Many Taiwanese claim to be part aboriginal. Chen suggests that the estimates resulted from manipulation of sample sizes. The lack of methodological rigor suggests the numbers were meant for local consumption. In all other scientific studies, genetic markers for aboriginal ancestry make up a minute portion of the genome.^[242] In 2021, Marie Lin, who was the source of the larger indigenous ancestry numbers, co-authored an article stating that there are "distinct patterns of genetic structure between the Taiwanese Han and indigenous populations." The paper also suggest East Asian ancestry may have mixed with indigenous peoples in their southward expansion 4,000 years ago, which can lead to data that may be misinterpreted as recent Taiwanese Han-indigenous admixtures. ^[246]

Economic issues[edit]

Many indigenous communities did not evenly share in the benefits of the economic boom Taiwan experienced during the last quarter of the 20th century. They often lacked satisfactory educational resources on their reservations, undermining their pursuit of marketable skills. The economic disparity between the village and urban schools resulted in imposing many social barriers on aborigines, which prevent many from moving beyond vocational training. Students transplanted into urban schools face adversity, including isolation, culture shock, and discrimination from their peers.^[247] The cultural impact of poverty and economic marginalization has led to an increase in alcoholism and prostitution among aborigines.^[248]^[9]

The economic boom resulted in drawing large numbers of aborigines out of their villages and into the unskilled or low-skilled sector of the urban workforce.^[249] Manufacturing and construction jobs were generally available for low wages. The aborigines quickly formed bonds with other communities as they all had similar political motives to protect their collective needs as part of the labor force. The aborigines became the most skilled iron-workers and construction teams on the island often selected to work on the most difficult projects. The result was a mass exodus of indigenous members from their traditional lands and the cultural alienation of young people in the villages, who could not learn their languages or customs while employed. Often, young aborigines in the cities fall into gangs aligned with the construction trade. Recent laws governing the employment of laborers from Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines have also led to an increased atmosphere of xenophobia among urban aborigines, and encouraged the formulation of a pan-indigenous consciousness in the pursuit of political representation and protection.^[250]

*Unemployment among the indigenous population of Taiwan (2005–09)* _{Source: CPA 2010}
Date	Total population	Age 15 and above	Total work force	Employed	Unemployed	Labor participation rate (%)	Unemployment rate (%)
December 2005	464,961	337,351	216,756	207,493	9,263	64.25	4.27
Dec. 2006	474,919	346,366	223,288	213,548	9,740	64.47	4.36
Dec. 2007	484,174	355,613	222,929	212,627	10,302	62.69	4.62
Dec. 2008	494,107	363,103	223,464	205,765	17,699	61.54	7.92
Dec. 2009	504,531	372,777	219,465	203,412	16,053	58.87	7.31

Religion[edit]

Young residents in the Bunun village of Lona, Taiwan dress up for the traditional Christmas holiday (not an official holiday in Taiwan). Christian missionaries have converted many residents to the Catholic and Protestant faiths, and the town holds two large holiday parades.

Of the current population of Taiwanese aborigines, about 70% identify themselves as Christian. Many of the Plains groups have mobilized their members around Christian organizations; most notably the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan and Catholicism.^[251]

Before contact with Christian missionaries during both the Dutch and Qing periods, Taiwanese aborigines held a variety of beliefs in spirits, gods, sacred symbols and myths that helped their societies find meaning and order. Although there is no evidence of a unified belief system shared among the various indigenous groups, there is evidence that several groups held supernatural beliefs in certain birds and bird behavior. The Siraya were reported by Dutch sources to incorporate bird imagery into their material culture. Other reports describe animal skulls and the use of human heads in societal beliefs. The Paiwan and other southern groups worship the Formosan hundred pacer snake and use the diamond patterns on its back in many designs.^[252] In many Plains Aborigines societies, the power to communicate with the supernatural world was exclusively held by women called Inibs. During the period of Dutch colonization, the Inibs were removed from the villages to eliminate their influence and pave the way for Dutch missionary work.^[253]

During the Zheng and Qing eras, Han immigrants brought Confucianized beliefs of Taoism and Buddhism to Taiwan's indigenous people. Many Plains Aborigines adopted Han religious practices, though there is evidence that many aboriginal customs were transformed into local Taiwanese Han beliefs. In some parts of Taiwan the Siraya spirit of fertility, Ali-zu (A-li-tsu) has become assimilated into the Han pantheon.^[254] The use of female spirit mediums (tongji) can also be traced to the earlier matrilineal Inibs.

Although many aborigines assumed Han religious practices, several sub-groups sought protection from the European missionaries, who had started arriving in the 1860s. Many of the early Christian converts were displaced groups of Plains Aborigines that sought protection from the oppressive Han. The missionaries, under the articles of extraterritoriality, offered a form of power against the Qing establishment and could thus make demands on the government to provide redress for the complaints of Plains Aborigines.^[255] Many of these early congregations have served to maintain aboriginal identity, language and cultures.

The influence of 19th- and 20th-century missionaries has both transformed and maintained aboriginal integration. Many of the churches have replaced earlier community functions, but continue to retain a sense of continuity and community that unites members of aboriginal societies against the pressures of modernity. Several church leaders have emerged from within the communities to take on leadership positions in petitioning the government in the interest of indigenous peoples^[256] and seeking a balance between the interests of the communities and economic vitality.

Ecological issues[edit]

The indigenous communities of Taiwan are closely linked with ecological awareness and conservation issues on the island, as many of the environmental issues are spearheaded by aborigines. Political activism and sizable public protests regarding the logging of the Chilan Formosan Cypress, as well as efforts by an Atayal member of the Legislative Yuan, "focused debate on natural resource management and specifically on the involvement of aboriginal people therein".^[257] Another high-profile case is the nuclear waste storage facility on Orchid Island, a small tropical island 60 km (37 mi; 32 nmi) off the southeast coast of Taiwan. The inhabitants are the 4,000 members of the Tao (or Yami). In the 1970s the island was designated as a possible site to store low and medium grade nuclear waste. The island was selected on the grounds that it would be cheaper to build the necessary infrastructure for storage and it was thought that the population would not cause trouble.^[258]

Large-scale construction began in 1978 on a site 100 m (330 ft) from the Immorod fishing fields. The Tao alleges that government sources at the time described the site as a "factory" or a "fish cannery", intended to bring "jobs [to the] home of the Tao/Yami, one of the least economically integrated areas in Taiwan".^[34] When the facility was completed in 1982, however, it was in fact a storage facility for "97,000 barrels of low-radiation nuclear waste from Taiwan's three nuclear power plants".^[259] The Tao have since stood at the forefront of the anti-nuclear movement and launched several exorcisms and protests to remove the waste they claim has resulted in deaths and sickness.^[260] The lease on the land has expired, and an alternative site has yet to be selected.^[261]

The competition between different ways of representing and interpreting indigenous culture among local tourism operators does exist and creates tensions between indigenous tour guides and the NGOs which help to design and promote ethno/ecotourism. E.g., in a Sioulin Township, the government sponsored a project "Follow the Footsteps of Indigenous Hunters". Academics and members from environmental NGOs have suggested a new way of hunting: to replace shotgun with camera. Hunters benefit from the satisfaction of ecotourists who may spot wild animals under the instructions of accompanied indigenous hunters [Chen, 2012]. The rarer the animals are witnessed by tourists, the higher the pay will be to the hunters.^[262]

Parks, tourism, and commercialization[edit]

Pas-ta'ai, a ritual of the Saisiyat people

Aboriginal groups are seeking to preserve their folkways and languages as well as to return to, or remain on, their traditional lands. Eco-tourism, sewing and selling carvings, jewelry and music have become viable areas of economic opportunity. However, tourism-based commercial development, such as the creation of Taiwan Aboriginal Culture Park, is not a panacea. Although these create new jobs, aborigines are seldom given management positions. Moreover, some national parks have been built on aboriginal lands against the wishes of the local communities, prompting one Taroko activist to label the Taroko National Park as a form of environmental colonialism.^[186] At times, the creation of national parks has resulted in forced resettlement of the aborigines.^[263]

Due to the close proximity of aboriginal land to the mountains, many communities have hoped to cash in on hot spring ventures and hotels, where they offer singing and dancing to add to the ambience. The Wulai Atayal in particular have been active in this area. Considerable government funding has been allocated to museums and culture centers focusing on Taiwan's aboriginal heritage. Critics often call the ventures exploitative and "superficial portrayals" of aboriginal culture, which distract attention from the real problems of substandard education.^[264] Proponents of ethno-tourism suggest that such projects can positively impact the public image and economic prospects of the indigenous community.

The attractive tourist destination includes natural resources, infrastructure, customs and culture, as well as the characteristics of the local industry. Thus, the role of the local community in influencing the tourism development activities is clear. The essence of tourism in today's world is the development and delivery of travel and visitation experiences to a range of individuals and groups who wish to see, understand, and experience the nature of different destinations and the way people live, work, and enjoy life in those destinations. The attitude of local people towards tourists constitutes one of the elements of a destination's tourism value chain.^[262] The attraction is a tourist area's experience theme, however the main appeal is the formation of the fundamentals of the tourism image in the region [Kao, 1995]. Attraction sources can be diverse, including the area's natural resources, economic activities, customs, development history, religion, outdoor recreation activities, events and other related resources. This way, the awareness of indigenous resources constitutes an attraction to tourists. The aboriginal culture is an important indicator of tourism products' attractiveness and a new type of economic sources.^[262]

While there is an important need to link the economic, cultural, and ecological imperatives of development in the context of tourism enterprises, there is the key question of implementation and how the idea of sustainable tourism enterprises can be translated into reality: formulation of strategies and how they may be expected to interact with important aspects of indigenous culture. In addition to being locally directed and relevant, the planning process for the establishment of an ethno/ecotourism enterprise in an indigenous community should be strategic in nature. The use of a strategic planning process enables indigenous culture to be regarded as an important characteristic requiring careful consideration, rather than a feature to be exploited, or an incidental characteristic that is overshadowed by the natural features of the environment.^[262]

Music[edit]

Young woman playing music in the Formosan Aboriginal Culture Village

A full-time aboriginal radio station, "Ho-hi-yan", was launched in 2005^[265] with the help of the Executive Yuan, to focus on issues of interest to the indigenous community.^[266] This came on the heels of a "New wave of Indigenous Pop",^[267] as aboriginal artists, such as A-mei, Pur-dur and Samingad (Puyuma), Difang, A-Lin (Ami), Princess Ai 戴愛玲 (Paiwan), and Landy Wen (Atayal) became international pop-stars. The rock musician Chang Chen-yue is a member of the Ami. Music has given aborigines both a sense of pride and a sense of cultural ownership.^[11]

The issue of ownership was exemplified when the musical project Enigma used an Ami chant in their song "Return to Innocence", which was selected as the official theme of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. The main chorus was sung by Difang and his wife, Igay. The Amis couple successfully sued Enigma's record label, which then paid royalties to the French museum that held the master recordings of the traditional songs, but the original artists, who had been unaware of the Enigma project, remained uncompensated.^[11]

Indigenous Peoples' Day[edit]

In 2016, the administration under President Tsai Ing-wen approved a proposal that designated August 1 as Indigenous Peoples' Day in Taiwan. In celebration of the special day, President Tsai issued an official apology to the country's aboriginal people and outlined steps to further promote legislation and involve organizations related to aboriginal causes, such as the Presidential Office's Indigenous Historical Justice and Transitional Justice Committee. The government hopes the day will remind the public of the diverse ethnic groups in Taiwan by bringing greater respect for indigenous peoples' cultures and history and promoting their rights.^[268]

Pulima Art Festival[edit]

The Pulima Art Festival (藝術節 also known as Pulima Arts Festival) is a biennial event held since 2012 which showcases Aboriginal and Indigenous art and culture and is the biggest Aboriginal contemporary art event in Taiwan. Pulima is a Paiwan word meaning "creative or highly skilled people". Inspired by the Edinburgh Art Festival and the Festival d'Avignon in France, Pulima is supported by the Indigenous Peoples Cultural Foundation. Dancers and musicians from Taiwan as well as abroad feature in the festival, which takes place between November and February every second year, and awards a prize called the Pulima Art Prize.^[269]

The festival was held in Taipei in 2012 and 2014, and in Kaohsiung in 2016. In 2016, the Atamira Dance Company and Black Grace came from New Zealand, and B2M (Bathurst to Melville), a band from the Tiwi Islands, Australia also performed at the festival.^[269]

The 2018 festival took place in the Museum of Contemporary Art Taipei Under the theme "MICAWOR – Turning Over", it displayed the talents of 26 groups of Taiwanese and international artists, and included a series of international forums, artist lectures, workshops and many other events. It collaborated with Melbourne's YIRRAMBOI Festival, with a "Festival in Festival" program.^[270]

The Pulima Arts Festival took place from 2020 to 2021^[271] and several videos of participants are available on YouTube.^[272]

Notes[edit]

^ In the case of travel writings, the Qing literati use of "raw" and "cooked" are closer in meaning to "unfamiliar" and "familiar", on the basis of culture/language and interaction with Han settlers.^[14]
^ One account of this "identity shift" occurs in the area called Rujryck by the Dutch, now part of Taipei city. A document signed by the village heads dating from the seventh year of the Qianlong era states: "We originally had no surnames, please bestow on us the Han surnames, Pan, Chen, Li, Wang, Tan, etc."^[65]

References[edit]

Citations[edit]

^ ^a ^b Stainton (2002).
^ Rigger, Shelley (2013). Why Taiwan Matters: Small Island, Global Powerhouse. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4422-3002-6.
^ "One Island, Twenty Tongues". Ketagalan Media. 3 May 2017. Archived from the original on 4 May 2017. Retrieved 6 May 2017.
^ ^a ^b ^c Hattaway (2003), pp. 39, 93, 425.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Blust (1999).
^ Hung, Hsiao-Chun; Iizuka, Yoshiyuki; Bellwood, Peter; Nguyen, Kim Dung; Bellina, Bérénice; Silapanth, Praon; Dizon, Eusebio; Santiago, Rey; Datan, Ipoi; Manton, Jonathan H. (2007). "Ancient jades map 3,000 years of prehistoric exchange in Southeast Asia". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (50): 19745–19750. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707304104. PMC 2148369. PMID 18048347.
^ Trejaut, Jean A.; Poloni, Estella S.; Yen, Ju-Chen; Lai, Ying-Hui; Loo, Jun-Hun; Lee, Chien-Liang; He, Chun-Lin; Lin, Marie (2014-01-01). "Taiwan Y-chromosomal DNA variation and its relationship with Island Southeast Asia". BMC Genetics. 15: 77. doi:10.1186/1471-2156-15-77. ISSN 1471-2156. PMC 4083334. PMID 24965575.
^ ^a ^b Zeitoun & Yu (2005), p. 167.
^ ^a ^b Hsu (1991), pp. 95–9.
^ Kuo, Lily; Chen, Alicia (4 April 2022). "Taiwan's Han Chinese seek a new identity among the island's tribes". Washington Post. Retrieved 24 April 2022. Republished as: Kuo, Lily; Chen, Alicia (9 April 2022). "'Indigenous in spirit, even if not by blood': Han Chinese seek a new identity among Taiwan's tribes". The Independent. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
^ ^a ^b ^c Anderson (2000), pp. 283–90.
^ Harrell (1996), pp. 5–20.
^ Teng (2004), pp. 61–5.
^ Teng (2004), pp. 126–27.
^ Harrell (1996), p. 19.
^ Diamond (1995), p. 100.
^ Crossley (1999), pp. 281–95.
^ Dikotter (1992), pp. 8–9.
^ Teng (2004), pp. 125–27.
^ Tai (1999), p. 294.
^ Harrison (2001), pp. 54–5.
^ Harrison (2001), p. 60.
^ Brown (2001), p. 163 n6.
^ "Saisiyat people launch referendum initiative". National Affairs. 28 April 2006. Retrieved 22 August 2010.^{[permanent dead link]}
^ Teng (2004), pp. 104–5.
^ Tsuchida (1983), p. 62.
^ Li (1992), pp. 22–3.
^ Shepherd (1993), pp. 51–61.
^ NDL-dl-DSS-front 臺灣總督府第十五統計書 [Governor-General of Taiwan Statistic Yearbook 1911] (in Japanese). Governor-General of Taiwan. 1913. p. 46. OCLC 674052936. Archived from the original on 2016-04-22.
^ "The latest figures of registration of Siraya people". Ethnic Affairs Commission of Tainan City Government. 2016-12-02. Archived from the original on 2018-05-30. Retrieved 2018-05-29.
^ "呼應蔡英文平埔政策！花蓮富里首開「鄉定原民」先例，2年過去卻不滿百人登記是發生啥事呢？". Mata Taiwan. 2016-08-25. Retrieved 2018-05-29.
^ "部落大小聲節目加蚋埔部落錄製平埔議題". TITV. 2017-11-10. Archived from the original on 2017-12-05. Retrieved 2018-05-29.
^ "西拉雅平埔族註記、高市熟男266人.熟女207人". Kaohsiung City Government. 2016-09-13. Archived from the original on 2018-05-29. Retrieved 2018-05-29.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Ericsson (2004).
^ ^a ^b "Gov't officially recognizes two more aboriginal people groups". China Post. CNA. 27 June 2014. Archived from the original on 11 November 2014. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
^ Lee (2003).
^ Chuang (2005).
^ ^a ^b Brown (2004).
^ "Kavalan become official Aboriginal group". Taipei City Government. 5 May 2005.
^ Diplomat, James X. Morris, The. "Meet Taiwan's Newest Official Indigenous Group". The Diplomat. Retrieved 2018-07-31.
^ ^a ^b Cheng (2007).
^ Shih & Loa (2008).
^ "鄧州"台灣村"高山族的歷史記憶-台灣問題論文-論文網". www.lunwendata.com.
^ "FEATURE: Seeking headhunter roots in Taiwan". Taipei Times. 4 April 2010. Retrieved 1 March 2021.
^ Liu (2002), pp. 75–98.
^ Shepherd (1993), pp. 1–10.
^ Kang (2003), pp. 115–26.
^ Shepherd (1995), pp. 58–63.
^ Blusse & Everts (2000), pp. 77–8.
^ Brown (2004), pp. 38–50.
^ Brown (2004), pp. 155–64.
^ Harrison (2001), pp. 60–7.
^ ^a ^b Duara (1995).
^ Brown 2004. pp. 156–7.
^ Brown 2004. p. 162.
^ Brown 2004. p. 157.
^ "Pazeh writers get awards for preserving language". Taipei Times. 2016-09-04. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-09-10.
^ "Pazeh poets honored at ceremony". Taipei Times. 2016-09-04. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-09-10.
^ "Pingpu activists demand government recognition". Taipei Times. 2016-09-04. Archived from the original on 2016-08-12. Retrieved 2016-09-10.
^ ^a ^b Hsieh (2006).
^ Shepherd (1993).
^ Lamley (1981), p. 282.
^ Meskill (1979), pp. 253–55.
^ Brown (1996).
^ (Pan 2002:30)
^ Liu (2002), pp. 31–2.
^ ^a ^b Ebrey (1996), pp. 19–34.
^ Ebrey (1996), p. 26.
^ The change involves only the addition of a water radical to the character (Shepherd 1993:384)
^ Pan (1996), pp. 440–62.
^ Hong (1997), pp. 310–15.
^ Hsu (1980).
^ Low (2005) states: "According to a documentary released by the Democratic Progressive Party's ethnic affairs department, although aborigines are now allowed to use their traditional names following a 1995 amendment to the Personal Names Act, only 890 out of the total of 460,000 indigenous Taiwanese have done so because of the past stigma attached to the names and the complicated formalities involved"
^ Loa (2007).
^ Lin, Chang-shun; Sabatier, Luke (1 April 2022). "Constitutional Court strikes down legal clause on Indigenous status". Central News Agency. Retrieved 1 April 2022.
^ Hill et al. (2007).
^ Bird, Hope & Taylor (2004).
^ Rolett, Jiao & Lin (2002), pp. 307–8, 313.
^ Diamond, Jared M. (2000). "Taiwan's gift to the world". Nature. 403 (6771): 709–710. Bibcode:2000Natur.403..709D. doi:10.1038/35001685. PMID 10693781.
^ Mijares, Armand Salvador B. (2006). "The Early Austronesian Migration To Luzon: Perspectives From The Peñablanca Cave Sites". Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association. 26: 72–78. doi:10.7152/bippa.v26i0.11995.
^ Gray RD, Drummond AJ, Greenhill SJ (January 2009). "Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement". Science. 323 (5913): 479–83. Bibcode:2009Sci...323..479G. doi:10.1126/science.1166858. PMID 19164742. S2CID 29838345.
^ Pawley A (2002). "The Austronesian dispersal: languages, technologies and people". In Bellwood PS, Renfrew C (eds.). Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. pp. 251–273. ISBN 978-1-902937-20-5.
^ Hung, Hsiao-chun; Nguyen, Kim Dung; Bellwood, Peter; Carson, Mike T. (2013). "Coastal Connectivity: Long-Term Trading Networks Across the South China Sea". Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology. 8 (3): 384–404. doi:10.1080/15564894.2013.781085. S2CID 129020595.
^ Hung H, Iizuka Y, Bellwood P (2006). "Taiwan Jade in the Context of Southeast Asian Archaeology". In Bacus EA, Glover IC, Pigott VC (eds.). Uncovering Southeast Asia's Past: Selected Papers from the 10th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists : the British Museum, London, 14th–17th September 2004. NUS Press. pp. 203–215. ISBN 9789971693510.
^ Bellwood P, Hung H, Iizuka Y (2011). "Taiwan Jade in the Philippines: 3,000 Years of Trade and Long-distance Interaction" (PDF). In Benitez-Johannof P (ed.). Paths of Origins: The Austronesian Heritage. Artpostasia Pte Ltd. pp. 30–41. ISBN 9789719429203.
^ Hung HC, Iizuka Y, Bellwood P, Nguyen KD, Bellina B, Silapanth P, et al. (December 2007). "Ancient jades map 3,000 years of prehistoric exchange in Southeast Asia". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104 (50): 19745–50. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707304104. JSTOR 25450787. PMC 2148369. PMID 18048347.
^ Tsang, Cheng-hwa (2000), "Recent advances in the Iron Age archaeology of Taiwan", Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 20: 153–158, doi:10.7152/bippa.v20i0.11751
^ Turton, M. (2021). Notes from central Taiwan: Our brother to the south. Taiwan's relations with the Philippines date back millenia, so it's a mystery that it's not the jewel in the crown of the New Southbound Policy. Taiwan Times.
^ Everington, K. (2017). Birthplace of Austronesians is Taiwan, capital was Taitung: Scholar. Taiwan News.
^ Bellwood, P., H. Hung, H., Lizuka, Y. (2011). Taiwan Jade in the Philippines: 3,000 Years of Trade and Long-distance Interaction. Semantic Scholar.
^ Wang, Li-Ying; Marwick, Ben (1 October 2020). "Standardization of ceramic shape: A case study of Iron Age pottery from northeastern Taiwan". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 33: 102554. Bibcode:2020JArSR..33j2554W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102554. S2CID 224904703.
^ Wang, Li-Ying; Marwick, Ben (29 September 2020). "Trade ornaments as indicators of social changes resulting from indirect effects of colonialism in northeastern Taiwan". Archaeological Research in Asia. 24: 100226. doi:10.1016/j.ara.2020.100226. S2CID 222117771.
^ Gold (1986), pp. 24–8.
^ Kang (2003), pp. 111–17.
^ Shepherd (1993), pp. 29–34.
^ Shepherd (1995), pp. 61–5.
^ Andrade (2005), p. 296 2n.
^ Gold (1986), pp. 10–11.
^ Shepherd (1995), pp. 52–3.
^ Blusse & Everts (2000), pp. 11–20.
^ Campbell (1915), p. 240.
^ Shepherd (1995), p. 66.
^ Shepherd (1995), pp. 66–8.
^ Shepherd (1993), p. 451 19n.
^ Andrade (2005), p. 303.
^ Andrade (2005), p. 298.
^ Shepherd (1993), p. 90.
^ Shepherd1993, p. 59.
^ Covell, Ralph R. (1998). Pentecost of the Hills in Taiwan: The Christian Faith Among the Original Inhabitants (illustrated ed.). Hope Publishing House. pp. 96–97. ISBN 0-932727-90-5.
^ Hsin-Hui, Chiu (2008). The Colonial 'civilizing Process' in Dutch Formosa: 1624–1662. TANAP monographs on the history of the Asian-European interaction. Vol. 10 (illustrated ed.). BRILL. p. 222. ISBN 978-9004165076.
^ Xing Hang (2016). Conflict and Commerce in Maritime East Asia: The Zheng Family and the Shaping of the Modern World, c.1620–1720. Cambridge University Press. p. 139. ISBN 978-1-316-45384-1.
^ Shepherd (1993), pp. 92–103.
^ Pickering (1898), pp. 116–18.
^ Teng (2004), pp. 35–60.
^ Tsao (1999), p. 331.
^ Knapp (1980), pp. 55–68.
^ Shepherd (1993), pp. 14–20.
^ "From 1684 to 1895, 159 major incidents of civil disturbances rocked Taiwan, including 74 armed clashes and 65 uprisings led by wanderers. During the 120 years from 1768 to 1887, approximately 57 armed clashes occurred, 47 of which broke out from 1768 to 1860" (Chen 1999:136).
^ Kerr (1965), p. 4.
^ ^a ^b Twitchett 2002, p. 228.
^ Shepherd (1993), pp. 128–29.
^ Chen (1997).
^ Ye 2019, p. 106.
^ Ye 2019, p. 91.
^ Ye 2019, p. 46-49.
^ Ye 2019, p. 49-50.
^ Ye 2019, p. 50-55.
^ Ye 2019, p. 55-56.
^ Ye 2019, p. 56.
^ Ye 2019, p. 56-57.
^ Ye 2019, p. 58.
^ Ye 2019, p. 59-61.
^ For a detailed overview of the many migrations of Taiwanese indigenous tribes, see (Li 2001). For detailed map see Distribution of Austronesian in Taiwan depicting migration Archived 2007-06-21 at the Wayback Machine.
^ Tsuchida & Yamada (1991), pp. 1–10.
^ Li (2001).
^ Blusse & Everts (2000), pp. 11–12.
^ Shepherd (1993), pp. 1–6.
^ Shepherd (1995), pp. 66–72.
^ Shepherd (1993), pp. 391–95.
^ Pan (2002), pp. 36–7.
^ (Yeh 2003)
^ Ye 2019, p. 61-62.
^ ^a ^b Ye 2019, p. 62.
^ Ye 2019, p. 63-64.
^ Ye 2019, p. 64-65.
^ ^a ^b Ye 2019, p. 65.
^ Rubinstein 1999, p. 191.
^ Ye 2019, p. 1, 10, 174.
^ Rubinstein 1999, p. 177.
^ Ye 2019, p. 1.
^ Ye 2019, pp. 174–175, 166.
^ Campbell (1915).
^ Mackay (1896).
^ Pickering (1898), pp. 220–24.
^ Teng (2004), pp. 230–36.
^ Hsu (1991), pp. 29–36.
^ Montgomery-McGovern (1922).
^ Yeh 2003
^ Gold (1986), p. 36.
^ Kleeman (2003), p. 19.
^ Kleeman (2003), pp. 20–1.
^ Andrew D. Morris (2015). Japanese Taiwan: Colonial Rule and its Contested Legacy. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4725-7674-3.
^ Takekoshi (1907), pp. 210–19.
^ Robert Thomas Tierney (2010). Tropics of Savagery: The Culture of Japanese Empire in Comparative Frame. University of California Press. pp. 39–41. ISBN 978-0-520-94766-5.
^ Julian Go; Anne L. Foster (2003). The American Colonial State in the Philippines: Global Perspectives. Duke University Press. p. 249. ISBN 0-8223-8451-5.
^ James St. André; Hsiao-yen Peng (January 2012). China and Its Others: Knowledge Transfer through Translation, 1829–2010. Rodopi. p. 142. ISBN 978-94-012-0719-5.
^ Mark Caprio (2014). Japanese Assimilation Policies in Colonial Korea, 1910–1945. University of Washington Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-0-295-99040-8.
^ Murray A. Rubinstein (2015). Taiwan: A New History. Routledge. pp. 211–212. ISBN 978-1-317-45908-8.
^ Current Politics and Economics of Asia. Nova Science Publishers. 1998. p. 277.
^ Shun yi Taiwan yuan zhu min bo wu guan (2001). In search of the hunters and their tribes: studies in the history and culture of the Taiwan indigenous people. Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines. p. 27. ISBN 978-957-30287-0-3.
^ Hsiao, Alison (15 June 2016). "Legislator May Chin calls for return of Atayal land". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.
^ 伊凡諾幹 (1997). "TCI0002344126".&searchmode=basic&tcihsspage=tcisearch_opt2_search 樟腦戰爭與'tayal (msbtunux) / (bng'ciq)初探--殖民主義、近代化與民族的動態一. Vol. 5. 臺北縣. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13.
^ 伊凡諾幹 (2000). 殖産興業、集団移住与文化生成：以 Tayal[bng'ciq]与Tayal[msbtunux]土地所有的変化為例. 中央研究院民族学研究所. p. 6. Archived from the original on 2016-12-24.
^ Crook 2014, p. 16.
^ ed. Cox 1930, p. 94.
^ ^a ^b The Japan Year Book 1937, p. 1004.
^ ed. Inahara 1937, p. 1004.
^ ed. Lin 1995, p. 84.
^ The Japan Year Book 1933, p. 1139.
^ Japan's progress number ... July, 1935, p. 19.
^ Suenari (2006), pp. 1–8.
^ Matsuda (2003), p. 181.
^ Ka (1995), pp. 27–30.
^ Suenari (2006), pp. 6–8.
^ Blundell (2000), pp. 15–16.
^ ^a ^b Simon (2006).
^ Ching (2001), pp. 153–73.
^ Mendel (1970), pp. 54–5.
^ Chou 2008, p. 124.
^ Wilson (1970).
^ Phillips (2003), pp. 47–8, 140–41.
^ Gao (2001).
^ Harrison (2001), pp. 68–70.
^ ^a ^b Harrison (2003), p. 351.
^ Hsiau (1997), p. 302.
^ Shih (1999).
^ Stainton (2006), pp. 400–10.
^ Hsiau (2000), p. 170.
^ Brown (2004), pp. 23–9.
^ Hsiau (2000), pp. 171–73.
^ Edmondson (2002), pp. 32–42.
^ Su (1986).
^ Hsiau (2000), p. 171.
^ Stainton (2006), pp. 401–10.
^ ^a ^b Gao (2007).
^ Eyton (2004).
^ Gluck (2005).
^ Liu (2006).
^ Faure (2001), pp. 98–100.
^ Stainton (1999).
^ Hsieh (2006), pp. 47–9.
^ Stainton (1999), p. 39.
^ Stainton (1999), pp. 38–9.
^ Rudolph (2003), p. 123.
^ Liu (2006), pp. 427–29.
^ "Legislative Yuan" 2004
^ Damm, Jens (2012). "Multiculturalism in Taiwan and the Influence of Europe". In Damm, Jens; Lim, Paul (eds.). European perspectives on Taiwan. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. p. 95. ISBN 978-3-531-94303-9.
^ Simon 2011, p. 28.
^ ed. Vinding 2004, p. 220.
^ "國民黨紀念光復稱莫那魯道抗日英雄 – 台灣立報". Lihpao.com. 2005-10-26. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
^ "Lawmaker and aborigines forbidden to visit Yasukuni". China Post. 15 June 2005. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
^ "Taiwan aboriginal lawmaker to take struggle against Japan to UN". sina English. Associated Press. 2005-09-14. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
^ James (12 August 2011). "Taiwanese Politician Faces Charges Over Yasukuni Protest". Japan Probe. Archived from the original on 25 March 2014. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
^ Chang, Mao-sen (12 August 2011). "Tokyo police charge lawmaker May Chin with assault". Japan Probe. Staff Reporter in TOKYO. p. 1. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
^ "EDITORIAL: 'ethnic card,' Aboriginal-style". Taipei Times. 25 February 2008. p. 8. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.
^ "Protesters accuse Dalai Lama of staging 'political show' in Taiwan". asiaone news. Agence France-Presse. Aug 31, 2009. Archived from the original on 2016-12-28. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
^ Wang, Amber (31 August 2009). "Dalai Lama visits Taiwan typhoon victims". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 28 December 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
^ "Dalai Lama visits Taiwan typhoon victims amid Chinese anger". Terra Daily. Kaohsiung, Taiwan (AFP). Aug 31, 2009. Archived from the original on 2016-12-28. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
^ "Dalai Lama Visits Taiwan". The Wall Street Journal. 2 September 2009. Archived from the original on 19 March 2017.
^ Gerber, Abraham (2 August 2016). "Apology failed to explicitly acknowledge Aboriginal sovereignty: demonstrators". Taipei Times. p. 1. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.
^ Yang, Chun-huei (1 August 2016). "KMT Aborigine lawmakers to skip apology". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 4 September 2016.
^ Gerber, Abraham (8 May 2016). "Rights groups call on Tsai to return Aboriginal lands". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.
^ Hua, Meng-ching; Pan, Jason (15 June 2014). "Pazeh writers get awards for preserving language". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 11 November 2014.
^ "DPP lawmaker sorry for ethnic slur". Taipei Times. 19 November 2016. p. 3. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.
^ Hsiao, Alison (17 November 2016). "KMT slams DPP over Japan imports". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.
^ "China loophole: Why Taiwan relies on Indigenous diplomacy". Christian Science Monitor.
^ "狩獵權釋憲失敗原民立委：社會對「自然資源利用」與「生態保育」仍有誤解／沃草". watchout.tw.
^ 鄭敏 (24 May 2021). "被宣告「部分違憲」的王光祿案，法律仍未真正看到原住民狩獵文化". 鳴人堂 (in Chinese). 天下.
^ "President pardons Bunun hunter".
^ Hsiao, Alison (1 December 2016). "Tsai failing nation's Aborigines: KMT". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.
^ Lin 2007.
^ ^a ^b ^c Liu 2012, p. 332-333.
^ ^a ^b Chen, Shu-juo; Duan, Hong-kuan (2008). "Plains Indigenous Ancestors and Taiwan Blood Nationalism". Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies. 72.
^ Liu 2012, p. 341.
^ ^a ^b Waksman, Itamar (14 January 2022). "The Siraya's Fight for Recognition in Taiwan". The News Lens International Edition. Retrieved 2023-04-19.
^ Lo, Yun-Hua; Cheng, Hsueh-Chien; Hsiung, Chia-Ni; Yang, Show-Ling; Wang, Han-Yu; Peng, Chia-Wei; Chen, Chun-Yu; Lin, Kung-Ping; Kang, Mei-Ling; Chen, Chien-Hsiun; Chu, Hou-Wei (2021-10-01). "Detecting Genetic Ancestry and Adaptation in the Taiwanese Han People". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 38 (10): 4149–4165. doi:10.1093/molbev/msaa276. ISSN 0737-4038. PMC 8476137. PMID 33170928.
^ Chou (2005), pp. 8–13.
^ Meyer (2001), p. 27.
^ DGBAS 2000; CIP 2004
^ Chu (2001), pp. 167–69.
^ Stainton (2006), pp. 393–98.
^ Montgomery-McGovern (1922), pp. 145–46.
^ Blusse (2006), pp. 71–82.
^ Shepherd (1986), pp. 1–81.
^ Shepherd (1993), p. 382.
^ Stainton (2006), pp. 420–22.
^ Chen & Hay (2004), p. 1124.
^ Cohen (1988), pp. 355–57.
^ "Premier apologizes" 2002
^ "Tao demand" 2003
^ Loa (2010).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Kachniewska, Magdalena (2016), Indigenous tourism clusters development in Taiwan: economic and cultural foundations of sustainability (in print)
^ Lin (2006).
^ Mo (2005).
^ Ho Hi Yan 2005
^ Listen to Ho-hi-yan Archived 2013-08-19 at the Wayback Machine; requires Windows Media Player 9 or higher.
^ Liu (2000).
^ "Taiwan designates Aug. 1 as Indigenous Peoples' Day". Focus Taiwan CNA. Retrieved 1 August 2020.
^ ^a ^b Baker, Diane (10 November 2016). "Pulima Art Festival opts for south". Taipei Times. Retrieved 28 March 2021.
^ "MICAWOR – 2018 PULIMA Art Festival". Medianet. 18 December 2018. Retrieved 28 March 2021.
^ "2020 Festival". PulimaENG (in Latin). Retrieved 28 March 2021.
^ 2020 Pulima Art Festival on YouTube

Sources[edit]

Andrade, Tonio (2005). "Pirates, Pelts, and Promises: The Sino-Dutch Colony of Seventeenth-Century Taiwan and the Aboriginal Village of Favorolang". The Journal of Asian Studies (2nd ed.). 64 (2): 295–321. doi:10.1017/s0021911805000793. JSTOR 25075752. S2CID 162580919.
Anderson, Christian A. (2000). "New Austronesian Voyaging: Cultivating Amis Folk Songs for the International Stage". In Blundell, David (ed.). Austronesian Taiwan: Linguistics, History, Ethnology, Prehistory. Taipei: SMC Publishing. ISBN 9789868537804.
Bird, Michael I; Hope, Geoffrey; Taylor, David (2004). "Populating PEP II: the dispersal of humans and agriculture through Austral-Asia and Oceania". Quaternary International. 118–19: 145–63. Bibcode:2004QuInt.118..145B. doi:10.1016/s1040-6182(03)00135-6. Accessed 31 March 2007.
Blundell, David (2000). Taiwan: Linguistics, History and Prehistory. Taipei: SMC Publishing. ISBN 9789868537804.
Blusse, Leonard; Everts, Natalie (2000). The Formosan Encounter: Notes on Formosa's Aboriginal Society — A selection of Documents from Dutch Archival Sources Vol. I & Vol. II. Taipei: Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines. ISBN 957-99767-2-4 & ISBN 957-99767-7-5.
Blusse, Leonard (2006). "The Eclipse of the Inibs: The Dutch Protestant Mission in 17th Century Taiwan and its Persecution of Native Priestesses". In Yeh Chuen-Rong (ed.). History, Culture and Ethnicity: Selected Papers from the International Conference on the Formosan Indigenous Peoples. Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc. ISBN 978-957-30287-4-1.
Blust, Robert (1999). "Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics". In E. Zeitoun; P.J.K. Li (eds.). Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Taipei: Academia Sinica. pp. 31–94.
Brown, Melissa J (1996). "On Becoming Chinese". In Melissa J. Brown (ed.). Negotiating Ethnicities in China and Taiwan. Berkeley, CA: Institute of East Asian Studies of the University of California. China Research Monograph 46.
Brown, Melissa J. (2001). "Reconstructing ethnicity: recorded and remembered identity in Taiwan". Ethnology. 40 (2): 153–164. doi:10.2307/3773928. JSTOR 3773928.
Brown, Melissa J (2004). Is Taiwan Chinese? : The Impact of Culture, Power and Migration on Changing Identities. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23182-1.
Campbell, Rev. William (1915). Sketches of Formosa. London, Edinburgh, New York: Marshall Brothers Ltd. reprinted by SMC Publishing Inc 1996. ISBN 957-638-377-3.
Chen, Chiu-kun (1997). Qing dai Taiwan tu zhe di quan, (Land Rights in Qing Era Taiwan). Taipei, Taiwan: Academia Historica. ISBN 957-671-272-6.
Chen, Chiukun (1999). "From Landlords To Local Strongmen: The Transformation Of Local Elites In Mid-Ch'ing Taiwan, 1780–1862". In Murray A. Rubinstein (ed.). Taiwan: A New History. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. pp. 133–62. ISBN 978-1-56324-816-0.
Chen, Henry C. L.; Hay, Peter (2004). "Dissenting Island Voices: Environmental Campaigns in Tasmania and Taiwan". Changing Islands – Changing Worlds: Proceedings of the Islands of the world VIII International Conference. pp. 1110–31., 1–7 November 2004, Kinmen Island (Quemoy), Taiwan.
Cheng, Zoe (Apr 1, 2007). "The Secret's Out". Taiwan Review. 57 (4). Archived from the original on 2007-05-05. Accessed 22 April 2007.
Ching, Leo T.S. (2001). Becoming "Japanese" Colonial Taiwan and The Politics of Identity Formation. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-22551-1.
Chou, Hui-min (2005). Educating Urban Indigenous Students in Taiwan: Six Teachers' Perspectives (Doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park. hdl:1903/3092.
Chu, Jou-juo (2001). Taiwan at the end of The 20th Century: The Gains and Losses. Taipei: Tonsan Publications.
Chuang, Jimmy (Oct 14, 2005). "Tribe wants official recognition". Taipei Times (Taiwan). Accessed 21 April 2007.
Cohen, Marc J. (1988). Taiwan At The Crossroads: Human Rights, Political Development and Social Change on the Beautiful Island. Washington D.C.: Asia Resource Center.
Council Of Labor Affairs, Executive Yuan. (2010). Aboriginal Labor Statistics. Original version; Machine translated English version Accessed 28 August 2010.
Council of Indigenous Peoples. (2004). Table 1. Statistics of Indigenous Population in Taiwan and Fukien Areas for Townships, Cities and Districts [Download file and open as HTML document]. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
Crossley, Pamela Kyle (1999). A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23424-3.
Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. (DGBAS). (2000). National Statistics, Republic of China (Taiwan). Preliminary statistical analysis report of 2000 Population and Housing Census. Excerpted from Table 29: The characteristics of indigenous population in Taiwan-Fukien Area Accessed 18 March 2007.
Diamond, Norma (1995). "Defining the Miao: Ming, Qing and Contemporary Views". In Stevan Harrell (ed.). Cultural Encounters of China's Ethic Frontiers. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Dikotter, Frank (1992). The Discourse of Race in Modern China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-2334-6.
Duara, Presenjit (1995). Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.
Ebrey, Patricia (1996). "Surnames and Han Chinese Identity". In Melissa J. Brown (ed.). Negotiating Ethnicities in China and Taiwan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 1-55729-048-2.
Edmondson, Robert (2002). "The February 28 Incident and National Identity". In Stephane Corcuff (ed.). Memories of the Future: National Identity Issues and the Search for a New Taiwan. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Ericsson, Niclas S (2004). "Creating 'Indian Country' in Taiwan?". Harvard Asia Quarterly. VIII (1 (Winter)): 33–44. Archived from the original on 2007-03-13.
Eyton, Laurence (3 March 2004). "Pan-blues' winning ways". Asia Times Online. Archived from the original on 27 March 2004.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) Accessed 3 June 2007.
Faure, David (2001). In Search of the Hunters and Their Tribes. Taipei: Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines Publishing. ISBN 957-30287-0-0.
Gao, Pat (2001). "Minority, Not Minor". Taiwan Review. Website of Government Information Office, Republic of China. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
Gao, Pat (4 April 2007). "The Revitalized Vote". Taiwan Review. Accessed 22 August 2010.
Gluck, Caroline (2005). "Taiwan's aborigines find new voice". BBC News Taiwan. July 4. Accessed 6 March 2007.
Gold, Thomas B. (1986). State and society in the Taiwan miracle. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Harrell, Stevan (1996). "Introduction". In Melissa J. Brown (ed.). Negotiating Ethnicities in China and Taiwan. Berkeley, CA: Regents of the University of California. pp. 1–18.
Harrison, Henrietta (2001). "Changing Nationalities, Changing Ethnicities: Taiwan Indigenous Villages in the years after 1946". In David Faure (ed.). In Search of the Hunters and Their Tribes: Studies in the History and Culture of the Taiwan Indigenous People. Taipei: SMC Publishing.
Harrison, Henrietta (2003). "Clothing and Power on the Periphery of Empire: The Costumes of the Indigenous People of Taiwan". Positions. 11 (2): 331–60. doi:10.1215/10679847-11-2-331. S2CID 146633369.
Hattaway, Paul (2003). Operation China. Introducing all the Peoples of China. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library Pub. ISBN 0-87808-351-0.
Hill, Catherine; Soares, Pedro; Mormina, Maru; Macaulay, Vincent; Clarke, Dougie; Clarke, Petya B. (2007). "A Mitochondrial Stratigraphy for Island Southeast Asia". American Journal of Human Genetics. 80 (1): 29–43. doi:10.1086/510412. PMC 1876738. PMID 17160892.
Ho Hi Yan Hits the Airwaves. (2005, May 5). Taipei City Government Accessed 17 March 2007.
Hong, Mei Yuan (1997). Taiwan zhong bu ping pu zhu (Plains Tribes of Central Taiwan). Taipei, Taiwan: Academia Historica.
Hsiau, A-chin (1997). "Language Ideology in Taiwan: The KMT's language policy, the Tai-yü language movement, and ethnic politics". Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 18 (4): 302–15. doi:10.1080/01434639708666322.
Hsiau, A-chin (2000). Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism. London: Routledge.
Hsieh, Jolan (2006). Collective Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Identity Based Movements of Plains Indigenous in Taiwan. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Hsu, Wen-hsiung (1980). "Frontier Social Organization and Social Disorder in Ch'ing Taiwan". In Ronald Knapp (ed.). China's Island Frontier: Studies in the Historical Geography of Taiwan. HI: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 85–104. doi:10.2307/j.ctv9zckx5. ISBN 978-0-8248-0705-4. JSTOR j.ctv9zckx5. S2CID 243373709.
Hsu, Mutsu (1991). Culture, Self and Adaptation: The Psychological Anthropology of Two Malayo-Polynesian Groups in Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica. ISBN 957-9046-78-6.
Kang, Peter (2003). "A Brief Note on the Possible Factors Contributing to the Large Village Size of the Siraya in the Early Seventeenth Century". In Leonard Blusse (ed.). Around and About Formosa. Taipei: SMC Publishing. pp. 111–27.
Ka, Chih-ming (1995). Japanese Colonialism in Taiwan: Land Tenure, Development and Dependency, 1895–1945. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Kerr, George H (1965). Formosa Betrayed. Cambridge: The Riverside Press.
Kleeman, Faye Yuan (2003). Under An Imperial Sun: Japanese Colonial Literature of Taiwan and The South. Honolulu, HA: University of Hawaii Press.
Knapp, Ronald G (1980). "Settlement and Frontier Land Tenure". In Ronald G. Knapp (ed.). China's Island Frontier: Studies in the Historical Geography of Taiwan. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 55–68. ISBN 957-638-334-X.
Lamley, Harry J (1981). "Subethnic Rivalry in the Ch'ing Period". In Emily Martin Ahern; Hill Gates (eds.). The Anthropology of Taiwanese Society. CA: Stanford University Press. pp. 283–88.
Lee, Abby (Aug 29, 2003). "Chimo seek recognition of aboriginal status". Taiwan Journal. Archived from the original on 2011-08-30. Accessed 22 August 2010.
The Legislative Yuan Republic of China. (2004). Members of the Legislative Yuan Accessed 22 August 2010.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei (1992). "History of the Movements of Austronesian Speaking Peoples of Taiwan: An Exploration From Linguistic Data and Phenomena". Newsletter of Taiwan History Field Research.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei (2001). "The Dispersal of The Formosan Aborigines in Taiwan" (PDF). Language and Linguistics. 2 (1): 271–78. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-10-02. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
Lin, Jean (6 May 2006). "Resettled Truku blast plans for hotels in Taroko park". Taipei Times (Taiwan).
Lin, Marie (August 11, 2007). "非原住民台灣人的基因結構" [Genetic profile for non-Indigenous Taiwanese]. 自由電子報 [Liberty News] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on October 16, 2007.
Liu, Alexandra (Aug 24, 2000). "A New Wave of Indigenous Pop—The Music of Pur-dur and Samingad". Taiwan Panorama. Archived from the original on 26 September 2007. Retrieved 17 March 2007.
Liu, Tan-Min (2002). ping pu bai she gu wen shu (Old Texts From 100 Ping Pu Villages). Taipei: Academia Sinica. ISBN 957-01-0937-8.
Liu, Tao Tao (2006). "The last Huntsmen's Quest for Identity: Writing From the Margins in Taiwan". In Yeh Chuen-Rong (ed.). History, Culture and Ethnicity: Selected Papers from the International Conference on the Formosan Indigenous Peoples. Taipei: SMC Publishing. pp. 427–30.
Liu, Jennifer A. (2012), "Aboriginal Fractions: Enumerating Identity in Taiwan", Medical Anthropology, 31 (4): 329–346, doi:10.1080/01459740.2011.630333, PMID 22746682, S2CID 23008277
Loa, Iok-sin (Jan 27, 2007). "Interview: Aboriginal name activists hopeful". Taipei Times (Taiwan): 2. Accessed 13 November 2007.
Loa, Iok-sin (Aug 8, 2010). "Environmentalists take aim at nuclear industry". Taipei Times (Taiwan): 2. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
Low, Y.F. (Nov 9, 2005). "DPP encourages aborigines to adopt traditional names". Central News Agency — Taiwan.
Mackay, George L. (1896). From Far Formosa. New York: F. H. Revell Co.
Matsuda, Kyoko (2003). "Ino Kanori's 'History' of Taiwan: Colonial ethnology, the civilizing mission and struggles for survival in East Asia". History and Anthropology. 14 (2): 179–96. doi:10.1080/0275720032000129938. S2CID 162750246.
Mendel, Douglass (1970). The Politics of Formosan Nationalism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Meskill, Johanna Menzel (1979). A Chinese Pioneer Family: The Lins of Wu-Feng, Taiwan 1729–1895. Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Meyer, Mahlon (Jan 8, 2001). "The Other Side of Taiwan". Newsweek (Atlantic Edition) Asian Section.
Mo, Yan-chih (Mar 21, 2005). "Aboriginal rights advocates blast cultural tourism". Taipei Times (Taiwan). Retrieved 21 April 2007..
Montgomery-McGovern, Janet B. (1922). Among the Head-Hunters of Formosa. Boston: Small Maynard and Co. Reprinted 1997, Taipei: SMC Publishing. ISBN 957-638-421-4.
Pan, Da He (2002). Pingpu bazai zu cang sang shi (The Difficult History of the Pazih Plains Tribe). Taipei: SMC Publishing. ISBN 957-638-599-7.
Pan, Ying (1996). Taiwan pingpu zu shi (History of Taiwan's Pingpu Tribes). Taipei: SMC Publishing. ISBN 957-638-358-7.
Premier apologizes to Tao tribe. (2002, May 24). Taipei Times. Pg. 3 Accessed 17 March 2007.
Phillips, Steven (2003). Between Assimilation and Independence: The Taiwanese Encounter Nationalist China, 1945–1950. Stanford California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-4457-7.
Pickering, W.A. (1898). Pioneering In Formosa. London: Hurst and Blackett. Republished 1993, Taipei, SMC Publishing. ISBN 957-638-163-0.
Rolett, Barry V.; Jiao, Tianlong; Lin, Gongwu (2002). "Early seafaring in the Taiwan Strait and the search for Austronesian origins". Journal of Early Modern History. 4 (1): 307–19. doi:10.1163/156852302322454576.
Rubinstein, Murray A. (1999), Taiwan: A New History, East Gate Books
Rudolph, Michael (2003). "Religion and the Formation of Taiwanese Identities". In Paul R. Katz; Maury Rubinstein (eds.). The Quest for Difference Versus the Wish to Assimilate: Aborigines and Their Struggle for Cultural Survival in Times of Multiculturalism. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Shepherd, John R. (1986). "Sinicized Siraya Worship of A-li-tsu". Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica No. 58. Taipei: Academia Sinica. pp. 1–81.
Shepherd, John R. (1993). Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier, 1600–1800. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Reprinted 1995, SMC Publishing, Taipei. ISBN 957-638-311-0.
Shepherd, John Robert (1995). Marriage and Mandatory Abortion among the 17th Century Siraya. Arlington VA: The American Anthropological Association.
Shih, Cheng-Feng (1999). Legal Status of the Indigenous Peoples of Taiwan. June 1999 International Aboriginal Rights Conference in Taipei.. Retrieved 24 March 2007.
Shih, Hsiu-chuan; Loa, Iok-sin (24 April 2008). "Sediq recognized as 14th tribe". Taipei Times (Taiwan). Retrieved 24 April 2008.
Simon, Scott (Jan 4, 2006). "Formosa's first Nations and the Japanese: from Colonial Rule to Postcolonial Resistance". The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. Accessed 22 August 2010.
Stainton, Michael (1999). "The Politics of Taiwan Aboriginal Origins". In Murray A. Rubinstein (ed.). Taiwan: A New History. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. ISBN 978-1-56324-816-0.
Stainton, Michael (2002). "Presbyterians and the Aboriginal Revitalization Movement in Taiwan". Cultural Survival Quarterly. 26 (2). Archived from the original on 2012-05-15. Accessed 22 August 2010.
Stainton, Michael (2006). "Hou Shan/Qian Shan Mugan: Categories of Self and Other in a Tayal Village". In Yeh Chuen-Rong (ed.). History, Culture and Ethnicity: Selected Papers from the International Conference on the Formosan Indigenous Peoples. Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc. ISBN 978-957-30287-4-1.
Su, Beng (1986). Taiwan's 400 year History: The Origins and Continuing Development of the Taiwanese Society and People (English Printing). Washington D.C.: Taiwanese Cultural Grass Roots Association. ISBN 978-0-939367-00-9.
Suenari, Michio (2006). "A Century of Japanese Anthropological Studies on Taiwan Aborigines". History, Culture and Ethnicity: Selected Papers from the International Conference on the Formosan Indigenous Peoples. Taipei: SMC Publishing.
Tai, Eika (1999). "The Assimilationist Policy and the Aborigines in Taiwan under Japanese Rule". Current Politics and Economics of Asia. 6 (4): 265–301.
Takekoshi, Yasaburo (1907). Japanese Rule in Formosa. London: Longmans and Green & Company. Reprinted 1996, Taipei, SMC Publishing.
Tao demand relocation of waste". ( 2003, Jan 02). CNA, Taipei. Page 3 Accessed 17 March 2007.
Teng, Emma Jinhua (2004). Taiwan's Imagined Geography: Chinese Colonial Travel Writing and Pictures, 1683–1895. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01451-0.
Tsao, Feng-fu (1999). "The Language Planning Situation in Taiwan". Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 20 (4): 328–48. doi:10.1080/01434639908666383.
Tsuchida, Shigeru (1983). "Austronesian Languages in Formosa". In S.A. Wurm; Hiro Hattori (eds.). Language Atlas of the Pacific Area. Canberra: Australian Academy of the Humanities.
Twitchett, Denis (2002), The Cambridge History of China 9 Volume 1
Tsuchida, S.; Yamada, Y. (1991). "Ogawa's Siraya/Makatao/Taivoan comparative vocabulary". In S. Tsuchida; Y. Yamada; T. Moriguchi (eds.). Linguistic Materials of the Formosan Sinicized Populations I: Siraya and Basai. Tokyo: The University of Tokyo, Linguistics Department.
Wilson, Richard W (1970). Learning To Be Chinese: The Political Socialization of Children in Taiwan. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. ISBN 0-262-23041-0.
Ye, Ruiping (2019), The Colonisation and Settlement of Taiwan, Routledge
Yeh, Yu-ting (2003). Atayal Narratives and Folktales, in the Formosan Language Archive. Taipei: The Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica Accessed 13 April 2007.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth; Yu, Ching-Hua (2005). "The Formosan Language Archive: Linguistic Analysis and Language Processing" (PDF). Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing. 10 (2): 167–200.
The Republic of China Yearbook 2014 (PDF). Executive Yuan, R.O.C. 2014. ISBN 9789860423020. Retrieved 2015-02-25.

=========================================

hai cuốn sách của Trung Quốc cần được nhắc đến, là Tô tem sói (Lang đồ đằng, tác giả Khương Nhung) và Trung Quốc mộng. Cả hai cuốn đều được quảng cáo và phát hành hết sức rầm rộ. Tô tem sói được viết dưới dạng tiểu thuyết nhưng thực chất đó là khảo cứu mang màu sắc dân tộc chủ nghĩa.

Tác giả xác định căn tính của người Trung Quốc là căn tính sói - một loài ranh mãnh, thủ đoạn, độc ác nhất trên cả thảo nguyên, bình nguyên và cao nguyên. Nhiều năm liền, Trung Quốc cho in đi in lại cuốn Tô tem sói. Bấy giờ, họ đang muốn tuyên truyền một tinh thần khác, một không khí khác, đó là tính chiến đấu và tinh thần quật cường của người dân nước họ.

Còn Trung Quốc mộng là hướng tuyên truyền của quân đội. Hai cuốn sách tuyên truyền hai hướng khác nhau. Xưa nay Trung Quốc là vậy, luôn đưa ra khả năng này, khả năng kia. Trung Quốc mộng vẫn trên tinh thần vừa thừa tiến, vừa uốn nắn tinh thần của Tô tem sói. Song, viết Trung Quốc mộng, Lưu Minh Phúc mới chỉ tiếp cận một góc tham vọng của nhà cầm quyền. Đọc kỹ thì góc tuyên truyền của Lưu Minh Phúc là duy trì cảm hứng chủ đạo trong tư tưởng của Đặng Tiểu Bình “thao quang dưỡng hối” (che đi khoảng sáng, nuôi dưỡng cái tù mù, không muốn minh bạch, rõ ràng với thế giới) và “trỗi dậy một cách hòa bình”.

* Với xuất phát điểm không ít khó khăn, việc Trung Quốc vươn lên, trở thành quốc gia có nền kinh tế lớn thứ hai thế giới thực sự là kỳ tích. Trong “thiết kế” của Đặng Tiểu Bình, “trỗi dậy một cách hòa bình” là một trong những cảm hứng chủ đạo. Nhưng những gì Trung Quốc hành xử trên Biển Đông trong hơn 10 năm qua cho thấy rõ là họ đã cách ly từng bước “thiết kế” của ông Đặng?

- Sau hai thập niên tham gia định hình những chính sách quan trọng nhất của Trung Quốc và được ủng hộ, nhà tư tưởng của Trung Quốc hiện nay là Vương Hỗ Ninh. Đây là một nhà nghiên cứu chính trị chuyên nghiệp, hiện là một trong bảy Ủy viên Thường vụ Bộ Chính trị Đảng Cộng sản Trung Quốc. Ông ta thiết kế một đường hướng khác Đặng Tiểu Bình, vừa tiếp tục nhưng lại vừa điều chỉnh, thay đổi.

Từ năm 2007, trên đỉnh cao nhất của nhóm làm chiến lược, đã bắt đầu thay đổi. Sự thay đổi từ Giang Trạch Dân, qua Hồ Cẩm Đào, tới Tập Cận Bình dựa vào Vương Hỗ Ninh là sự điều chỉnh có kế hoạch. Vương Hỗ Ninh thấy, phát triển theo cách Đặng Tiểu Bình đề nghị thì chậm. Ông ta muốn “đi” nhanh hơn, muốn thu hoạch nhiều hơn từ nhiều hướng khác nhau, do đó chấp nhận sự đa tạp của tình hình.

Người Trung Quốc, đặc biệt là giới cầm quyền luôn tin vào “trực giác định hướng” của mình. Họ thường giương đông kích tây, trong đầu luôn có các loại mưu kế. Thậm chí, họ còn tưởng tượng các tình huống có thể xảy ra, và luôn có sẵn “bài” để đối phó với từng tình huống tưởng tượng đó. Đây là đặc điểm phức tạp nhất để hiểu giới làm chính trị cực quyền, thượng đỉnh của Trung Quốc.

Con người không được mang ý thức về sinh mệnh

* Mô hình ông vua - thiên tử độc nhất thế giới, cùng căn tính sói của dân tộc (như họ tự nhận) khiến chính quyền của Trung Quốc có những đặc điểm gì riêng biệt, thưa giáo sư?

- Mô hình quyền lực tối cao ở Trung Quốc hầu như không có yếu tố tôn giáo mà chỉ duy trì biểu tượng thần quyền (đến một ngưỡng cần thiết cho tuyên truyền ở một mức độ nhất định). Nói cho cùng, mọi tôn giáo đích thực đều có giá trị cứu rỗi cho con người, kể cả những người cầm quyền tối thượng (như việc hoàng đế Napoléon Bonaparte vẫn cần sự có mặt của Giáo hoàng trong lễ lên ngôi).

Nhưng thể chế truyền thống của Trung Quốc thì khác, hoàng đế lên ngôi, tự lập đàn tế trời, tự công bố với thiên hạ, hành xử hoàn toàn nhân danh trời và đồng nhất trời với bản thân. Quyền lực của hoàng đế Trung Quốc không chịu “lép” bởi quyền lực tôn giáo, không có tín ngưỡng, cho nên mục đích của thể chế ấy cũng như phương tiện của họ là tính hiện thế. Tinh thần cực quyền của họ thể hiện rất rõ.

Tô tem sói và Giấc mơ Trung Quốc (Trung Quốc mộng) là hai hướng tuyên truyền phục vụ tham vọng bá chủ thế giới của nhà cầm quyền Trung Quốc

Người Trung Quốc có những chuyện kỳ dị mà nếu không phải người cầm quyền tối cao, không phải là những người tột cùng tham vọng thì không thể hiểu được, hoặc không đủ sức để đảm đương gánh nặng tâm lý ấy. Những người như Phạm Lãi (công thần của Câu Tiễn, ông vua nước Việt tại vị từ năm 496 - 465 trước Công nguyên) xưa hay Chu Ân Lai hiện đại đều không thể đeo đẳng mẫu người đó.

Sở dĩ Phạm Lãi sống được là do ông ta không theo mô hình đó (sau khi không khuyên được Câu Tiễn, Phạm Lãi bỏ đi biệt tích). Sở dĩ trong mấy trăm người từng là lãnh đạo cao cấp của Đảng Cộng sản Trung Quốc bị thanh trừng, một mình Chu Ân Lai tránh được, là bởi ông ta thuyết phục Mao Trạch Đông chỉ ở một điểm, đó là tiếng “nói thầm” luôn được nhắc đi nhắc lại: “Tôi không tranh, không bao giờ định tranh vị trí độc nhất với ông”.

Đặc điểm quyền lực bằng mọi giá của thiết chế chuyên chế này cũng là đặc điểm hàng đầu. Một đặc điểm không nơi thứ hai nào có nữa, đó là sự coi rẻ, vô hiệu hóa mạng người, vô nghĩa hóa thân phận mỗi người và bất cứ cá nhân nào. Không cần nói đến những chuyện cả thế giới hiện nay đang lên án, chỉ cần nói về nguồn gốc chiếc bánh bao trong lịch sử của họ: tiến xuống phía Nam là khó khăn lớn với những người sống ở Trung Nguyên. Cuộc hành quân của họ vấp phải những sơn hệ - thập vạn đại sơn, đặc biệt là Ngũ Lĩnh.

Người Trung Quốc luôn e ngại khi phải vượt qua năm ngọn núi đó. Đánh phương Nam là một trong những nỗi kinh hoàng cay cực của lính phương Bắc. Người lính của họ được giáo dục, tuyên truyền chuẩn bị tinh thần sẵn sàng giết, đồng thời cũng sẵn sàng chết. Cái chết thì được tô vẽ bằng chủ nghĩa anh hùng, “da ngựa bọc thây”, “nhẹ tựa lông hồng”. Còn đối thủ, đối phương thì cần bị “ăn gan, uống máu”.

Để “Nam chinh”, vì không biết phương tiện, điều kiện ra sao nên họ phải tích trữ lương khô mang theo. Nấu ăn cũng khó, nên loại bánh phổ biến họ làm là lương khô, vừa gọn nhẹ, vừa dễ sử dụng. Ngay từ thời ấy, họ đã giáo dục cho người lính phương Bắc của họ tinh thần vừa căm thù, vừa quyết tâm: ăn bánh “man đầu” (tức bánh bao) là ăn đầu người Nam man, tức cộng đồng Bách Việt.

Trong lịch sử chiến tranh ở Trung Quốc xưa, số binh lính thường được huy động lên tới vài chục đến vài trăm vạn. Vậy mà, như một nhà thơ đời Đường đã “ráo hoảnh”: “Cổ lai chinh chiến kỷ nhân hồi” - xưa nay ra trận mấy ai về. Phong cách thực thi chiến tranh nổi tiếng của Trung Quốc, nổi tiếng từ xưa trên toàn thế giới, là “chiến thuật biển người”, “lấy thịt đè người”.

Mạng người, bất kể là mạng của ai, trừ người nắm quyền tối cao, đều có thể trở nên vô nghĩa. Kể từ ngày lập nên nhà nước Cộng hòa Nhân dân Trung Hoa năm 1949, nghĩa là “thời bình”, không loạn lạc, không chiến tranh, mà theo nhiều nhà nghiên cứu cả trong lẫn ngoài Trung Quốc, số người chết không phải tự nhiên, mà chết do “nhân tai” - lỗi của người cai trị - lên đến cả trăm triệu người. Riêng nạn đói xảy ra vào những năm 1958-1961 trong và sau phong trào Đại dược tiến (đại nhảy vọt), theo nhiều tài liệu khác nhau, đã làm chết từ 37 - 43,5 triệu người.

* Không chỉ nghiên cứu Trung Quốc, giáo sư còn có nhiều thời gian giảng dạy ở ĐH Bắc Kinh. Đặc điểm nào của con người sống trên đất đó khiến ông nhớ nhất?

- Thân phận con người! Sau hơn 20 năm nghiên cứu Trung Quốc, năm 1998, lần đầu tiên, tôi mới có những ngày sống trên đất nước này. Tôi sang dạy ở trường đại học lớn nhất của họ với tư cách là chuyên gia hàng đầu, hưởng bậc lương rất cao. Nhưng cách xử sự của họ thì… kể ra cho hết, thật lắm chuyện khôi hài.

Nói vậy để thấy rằng, một vị trí như mình, khách mời (mà là “quốc khách”, vì bấy giờ tôi sang dạy bằng giấy mời của Quốc vụ viện, đóng dấu quốc huy hẳn hoi) như mình mà còn vậy.

sống ở Bắc Kinh và quan sát thì cảm nhận rất rõ rằng, con người ở đó không có ý thức về sinh mệnh hay thân phận

Ở Bắc Kinh, quan sát thì cảm nhận rất rõ rằng, con người ở đó không có ý thức về sinh mệnh hay thân phận

Đi dạy ở Bắc Kinh, sống ở Bắc Kinh và quan sát thì cảm nhận rất rõ rằng, con người ở đó không có ý thức về sinh mệnh hay thân phận. Cái gọi là “nhân thân” ở đây vô nghĩa. Không ai quan tâm, không ai muốn, không ai cần biết anh là ai; anh cũng chỉ như cái cây, ngọn cỏ ven đường. Họ chỉ cần biết người đó là da đen hay da trắng, là người giống họ hay không. Đó là lần đầu tiên tôi đến một cộng đồng mà cảm giác sự vô nghĩa của thân phận cá nhân rõ ràng đến vậy.

Bí mật về cuốn kỳ thư

* Tiếp xúc với cuốn Phản kinh, chính là trong chuyến đi đó?

- Sang Bắc Kinh, tôi đi lang thang xem sách thì cuốn sách có tiêu đề Phản kinh đập vào mắt. Đó là lần đầu tiên tôi biết có cuốn đó. Tôi cầm lên, thấy chữ khó đọc, giấy xấu, tên tác giả lại không đọc được, chữ rất lạ (họ Triệu thì đọc được), lại của một nhà xuất bản (NXB) hầu như không có tên tuổi gì - NXB Nội Mông.

Tôi đọc phần giới thiệu, họ viết rất rõ: “Lịch đại thống trị giả hành nhi bất ngôn dụng nhi bất tuyên đích kỳ thư”. Có nghĩa, đây là cuốn kỳ thư mà kẻ thống trị các đời làm theo nhưng không nói, dùng nhưng không công bố. Tôi giật mình, sách này là sách cấm, riêng phần giới thiệu đã thấy kinh hoàng. Hơn một ngàn năm, sách chỉ dành cho tầng lớp cao nhất của bộ máy cai trị. Dưới thời Minh, Thanh, ai đọc sách cấm mà bị phát hiện là phạm tội đại hình, bị giết. Và đó cũng là lần đầu tiên, người Trung Quốc biết đến Phản kinh một cách rộng rãi.

Tôi chép tên tác giả ra giấy mang đi hỏi một giáo sư của ĐH Bắc Kinh, ông này không biết. Ngày ĐH Bắc Kinh tổ chức kỷ niệm 100 năm thành lập ở Đại lễ đường nhân dân, riêng ô tô chở chuyên gia của họ là 80 xe. Ông ấy mang đi hỏi khắp, cũng không ai biết, vì người giỏi chữ Hán nhất Trung Quốc cũng chỉ biết đến 85% lượng chữ. Ông rất tức, dành mấy ngày để tra các loại từ điển thì tìm được tên tác giả là Nhuy (chữ Nhuy thực ra là phần đuôi của một từ có tính chất từ láy nên hiếm gặp). Tác giả đỗ tiến sĩ thời Trung Đường. Viết xong bộ sách này, Triệu Nhuy vào gặp vua một lần, dâng cho vua bộ sách và từ chối tất cả những lời ban khen, phong tặng, xin lui về quê rồi biệt tăm không ai biết.

Từ đời Đường, qua Tống, Nguyên, Minh, Thanh, cuốn sách ấy chỉ được nằm trong bí thư các (gác chứa sách) của vua, cũng không đưa xuống tứ khố toàn thư. Đến tận đời Càn Long, ông mới sai những đại học sĩ sao chép ra vài bản, phân hạng mục trong tứ khố toàn thư nhưng vẫn không lưu hành ra ngoài. Đích thân Càn Long đề tựa cho cuốn sách và đổi tên. Đại học giả nổi tiếng nhất của đời Càn Long là Kỷ Hiểu Lam hiệu đính cuốn sách. Và văn bản cuối cùng đó chính là văn bản mà NXB Nội Mông in.

* Vai trò, tính chất của Phản kinh đối với nhà cầm quyền Trung Quốc là gì thưa giáo sư?

- Tôi đọc và thấy tác giả đã cảnh báo rất đích đáng. Bộ sách này không phải nhà cầm quyền tối cao nào cũng đọc được, mà phải là người cực giỏi, nếu không thì rất tai hại. Vì đó là những thủ đoạn kinh khủng nhất của giới cầm quyền. Cũng vì thế mà khi từ Bắc Kinh về, tôi đã tìm mọi cơ hội để dịch cuốn sách đó, nhưng tiếc là hầu như không ai quan tâm. Giờ thì đã có bản dịch rồi.

* tiếp cận Phản kinh, cảm nghĩ về nó

- Triệu Nhuy kể theo lối nửa hư nửa thực, có nhiều yếu tố như Trang Tử, huyễn hoặc biến ảo, thật giả lẫn lộn. Anh đọc, anh tin có thật thì nó là thật, bởi những chuyện ông ấy kể không ai xác minh được. Tôi nhớ nhất câu chuyện kể về Phạm Lãi, với những chi tiết rất lạ. Việc Phạm Lãi bỏ đi, có những lời đồn thổi khác nhau. Nào là ông “cộng Tây Thi phiếm chu du Ngũ hồ” (cùng đại mỹ nhân Tây Thi rong ruổi Ngũ hồ), nào là lời đồn ông ấy đến một nơi, lập nơi đó thành Đào Nguyên rồi trở thành một thương gia vô cùng giàu có.

Và Triệu Nhuy kể theo hướng này: Phạm Lãi sống độc lập, không theo một “chủ mới” nào. Ông có ba đứa con. Đứa thứ hai sang nước Sở, ở đó đã phạm tội đại hình, bị bắt giam, xử chết. Phạm Lãi có một người bạn ở nước Sở rất được vua Sở tin nghe, nên ông nghĩ đến việc cầu cứu bạn. Phạm Lãi chuẩn bị một lượng tiền vàng lớn cho việc gặp người bạn kia.

Con cả và con út của Phạm Lãi đều đòi đi. Ông muốn giao việc cho con út nhưng người con cả bảo nó lớn hơn, khôn hơn, nó lại là trưởng, chịu trách nhiệm gia tộc nên phải để nó đi. Phạm Lãi không đồng ý, cậu cả dọa tự tử vì cho rằng bố không tin mình là việc ảnh hưởng đến thanh danh, và Phạm Lãi phải nhượng bộ.

Người bạn của Phạm Lãi nhận thư, trả lời sẽ giúp. Cậu cả về quán trọ chờ. Ông kia vào nói với vua:

“Việc thi hành những án lớn là chấn động đến cả tâm linh, cả thiên hạ; nếu làm phúc, đại xá được thì rất tốt”. Vua nghe. Hôm sau ban bố đại xá thiên hạ. Cậu cả nghe tin đó lẳng lặng mang hết tiền về quán trọ, không vào gặp ông kia nữa.

Ông bạn Phạm Lãi chờ mấy ngày không thấy cậu ta quay lại, biết ngay cậu này tiếc của (trong thư, Phạm Lãi viết rõ việc cảm ơn). Ông ta thay đổi cách ứng xử, vào nói lại với vua: “Hôm trước, tôi có tâu với chúa công việc đại xá, giết nhầm người đúng là oan, nhưng không trừng phạt đúng người phạm tội đại nghịch, đại ác cũng là họa”.

Và ngày hôm sau, cậu cả đi nhặt xác em đưa về. Về đến nhà, đã thấy Phạm Lãi chuẩn bị đầy đủ để làm ma cho đứa con thứ hai. Cậu cả hỏi vì sao cha biết, ông không trả lời, tỏ ra buồn rầu. Sau, ông cho một số người tâm phúc nhất biết, khi họ hỏi “thằng cả đi, thằng hai còn chết, thì làm sao thằng út đi mà cứu được?”. Phạm Lãi nói: “Khi tôi buộc phải cho thằng cả đi, tôi đã biết nó sẽ thất bại và thằng thứ hai phải chết. Là vì thằng cả sống với tôi từ thuở hàn vi, nó biết khổ, biết nhục, biết thiếu tiền là như thế nào, nên nó tiếc tiền. Còn thằng út sinh sau, khi tôi đã giàu, nó lớn lên trong nhung lụa nên nó sẽ mang ngay tiền đến nhà ông bạn tôi mà không do dự”.

Người ta lại hỏi, bạn ông như thế là không chí tình? Phạm Lãi trả lời: “Ông ấy biết, nếu thằng thứ hai không gặp biến cố này thì kiểu gì nó cũng là thằng hư hỏng, nên phải có sự trừng phạt. Ông ấy cũng biết thằng anh tham lam, bỉ lậu, nếu không có bài học xương máu đúng nghĩa này thì nó sẽ không thể tỉnh. Tôi nhờ ông ấy là quan hệ tình thân, nhưng còn cái gọi là thiên lý, ông ấy cũng không vì tình thân mà làm trái lẽ trời”. Tất cả mọi người nghe xong đều ngỡ ngàng, vì mọi sự xảy ra như thế nào, từ lâu đã nằm trong sự tính toán của Phạm Lãi.

Kinh hoàng! Tư tưởng của Trung Quốc lạ và biến ảo khôn lường.

Thế kỷ XIX, dưới thời nhà Thanh, Trung Quốc bị tám cường quốc của thế giới đánh phá, chia nhau đô hộ. Trung Quốc trở thành nước bán thuộc địa. Họ gọi đó là thế kỷ quốc nhục, bị xâu xé, các khu vực hay thành phố bị chia thành các khu tô giới (là phần đất nằm trong một quốc gia có chủ quyền nhưng lại bị một thực thể khác quản lý, Thượng Hải là trường hợp điển hình). Do đó, họ phải khẳng định lại khát vọng thống trị thế giới chứ không bao giờ chịu để người khác thống trị.

Đội ngũ các nhà nghiên cứu của họ đã nhìn nhận lại toàn bộ lịch sử của cả Trung Quốc và lịch sử thế giới. Họ nhận ra, tám cường quốc chia nhau xâu xé họ chủ yếu là đánh vào từ đường biển. Và họ cũng đủ tri thức để dần dần nhận ra được rằng, từ thế kỷ XVI, quốc gia nào muốn phát triển chủ nghĩa tư bản, trở thành cường quốc kinh tế, trở thành thực dân thì trước hết phải là cường quốc biển. Đây cũng là một trong những lý do khiến Trung Quốc quyết thực hiện bằng được dã tâm biến Biển Đông thành ao nhà của họ.

Uông Ngọc

Ý KIẾN BẠN ĐỌC(5)văn viên30-08-2020 15:08:28cao nhân sẽ có cao nhân trị. Tham vọng vô lượng thì thất bại cũng vô lượng. Bởi Trời luôn có mắt. Làm những việc phi nghĩa tàn độc, chắc chắn trời không dung đất không tha. Đó là qui luật bất biến... Trả lời 15 thích 0 không thíchnguyễn phương30-08-2020 03:55:47Từ mấy ngàn năm giới lãnh đạo TQ luôn cho mình là tâm của vũ trụ tất cả các nước khác đều man di mọi rợ cần phải được khai sáng bởi tư tưởng đại bá .Ông cha chúng ta dù triều đại nào cũng cảnh giác trước âm mưu thôn tính nước ta của họ ,dã tâm đó chưa bao giờ dừng lại .Trả lời 10 thích 0 không thíchĐặng Đông29-08-2020 21:28:12Đọc Totem sói thì tác giả Khương Nhung cho rằng người Trung Quốc được thừa hưởng căn tính sói từ những kẻ đến thống trị họ ở Phương Bắc như các bộ tộc người Mông Cổ, Mãn Thành, mặc dù các dân tộc đó đã bị họ đồng hoá. Trả lời 5 thích 3 không thíchNguyễn Hạnh29-08-2020 17:02:59Khủng khiếp bởi tư tưởng u ám tàn độc. Mặc dù GS nói ra những điều này hơi muộn vẫn còn hơn là không nóiTrả lời 6 thích 0 không thíchLưu Nguyễn29-08-2020 15:36:47Cái này gọi là sống chung với lũ.

Có những thứ mất đi, không thể khôi phục lại

Thứ Sáu, 12/07/2019, 11:19 Hai gương mặt của trí thức nho giáo

"Cao Xuân Huy. người dạy chính của lớp Hán - Nôm khóa đầu tiên được mở trở lại ở Hà Nội vào năm 1972. Lớp ấy có khoảng 14-15 người, sau đó có 7-8 người không theo nghề Hán - Nôm. Còn trong số những người theo nghề Hán - Nôm, dùng nó liên tục mấy chục năm từ khi ra trường đến tận bây giờ thì có tôi. Để thấy rằng, tôi có đủ thẩm quyền nói về ký ức của cái thế hệ cuối cùng đi theo truyền thống cựu học - thế hệ mà tôi kịp tiếp xúc, học hành, làm việc và sau đó tiếp bước con đường của họ", Giáo sư, tiến sĩ Trần Ngọc Vương mở đầu như thế khi tôi hỏi những cảm nhận của ông khi nhắc về kỳ thi cuối cùng của nền khoa bảng phong kiến Việt Nam, năm 1919.

Nói về chuyện khoa cử ngày xưa là để nói về những cái đã mất mát trong tâm hồn dân tộc và từ đó rút ra những bài học cho hiện tại này.

năm 2019 này tròn 100 năm kết thúc kỳ khoa cử cuối cùng của triều đình nhà Nguyễn. Sau đúng 100 năm nhìn lại, một nhà nghiên cứu tư tưởng - văn hóa trung đại 100 năm là quãng thời gian rất dài đối với một đời người, còn đối với lịch sử dân tộc cũng không phải là quá ngắn. Bây giờ nghĩ lại, chúng ta có cảm giác như có một cái gì đấy đứt gãy, mất mát. Cái mà ngày nay một tộc người vẫn đang đi tìm kiếm.

Đến thời hiện đại, nhân loại nói chung, chứ không riêng gì người Việt Nam, đã và đang nghiên cứu, phục hồi, tìm kiếm cái gì đó mình coi là mất mát. Thế nhưng, tôi nghĩ có những điều không thể nào tìm được, cũng không thể nào khắc phục được nữa rồi.

hành trình tìm kiếm cái đã mất, cái cội nguồn là một hành trình mang tính phổ quát toàn nhân loại.

- Hãy nhìn rộng thế này: Từ thế kỷ 16 cho đến tận bây giờ, châu Âu vẫn bị/được mang tiếng là "lục địa già", vậy nhưng "lục địa già" ấy vẫn tìm kiếm cái nguyên lai của nó, tức là tìm đến một cái còn "già" hơn nó nữa. Đó là văn hóa Hy La - cội nguồn bản thể của văn hóa châu Âu cận hiện đại. Thế rồi những nước không thuộc về lục địa già như Bắc Mĩ thì họ lại nhìn vào châu Âu như một quá khứ và truy nguyên mình từ cái quá khứ ấy.

Hành trình đó là có thật. Nó hiện hữu ngay trong đời sống thật của chúng ta. Bây giờ đến Mỹ, tới những vùng đất có những người châu Âu đầu tiên đặt chân lên thì người Mỹ vẫn tự hào lắm. Mặc dù những người châu Âu đầu tiên ấy chỉ mang được một phần nào đó bản sắc của mình trong cuộc thiên di lịch sử, chứ không thể mang được tất cả, nhưng chỉ một phần ấy thôi cũng tạo nên cái gốc gác của người Mỹ hiện đại.

Tôi sang Mỹ và cảm nhận rõ niềm tự hào của người Mỹ khi giới thiệu tường tận cho những người nước ngoài như tôi về một nhà thờ cổ, một kiến trúc cổ có tuổi thọ khoảng 300-400 năm tuổi. Còn với phần lớn người Việt hiện nay, có rất nhiều di sản mà chúng ta coi nó như một hoài niệm xa xăm lắm rồi, chúng ta không thực sự thấu hiểu nó nữa. Nhiều lúc tôi thấy, người Việt nói rất nhiều về quá khứ nhưng thực tế có vẻ không trân trọng quá khứ như mình nói.

- Thật ra thế này, quá khứ có rất nhiều giai đoạn khác nhau. Một trong những giai đoạn mà chúng ta có vẻ ít hiểu về nó, ít thấm thía nó chính là giai đoạn khoa cử phong kiến, với dấu mốc của kỳ thi cuối cùng năm 1919 như tôi vừa nói. Bây giờ, 100 năm đã trôi qua rồi, chúng ta có thể nhìn lại và hiểu chính xác về nó như thế nào đây?

- Đúng là chúng ta đã có hàng chục năm đứt gãy, mà hàng chục năm như thế là tai hại lắm. Đứt gãy thực sự là từ năm 1919, với kỳ thi đình cuối cùng ở miền Trung như Phan Đăng nói nhưng cần thấy rằng trước đó, miền Bắc thi kỳ cuối cùng năm 1915, còn miền Nam thi kỳ cuối cùng năm 1912. Mà đấy là đang nói về những đứt gãy trong thi cử, chứ còn về mặt tâm lý, về hứng thú học hành thì nó còn đứt gãy từ trước đó.

Trần Tế Xương từ hơn chục năm trước cái mốc 1919 đó đã thốt lên: "Đạo học ngày nay chán lắm rồi/ Mười người đi học chín người thôi/ Cô hàng bán sách lim dim ngủ/ Thầy khóa tư lương nhấp nhổm ngồi". Tư lương là gì? Là thầy do các gia chủ mời về dạy chữ thánh hiền cho con cái mình. Thầy còn nhấp nhổm thì trò sao mà yên tâm học hành được nữa. Có nghĩa là tâm thế học hành khoa cử theo lối cựu học đã dần dần mai một.

- Hẳn nhiên là có nhiều cách lý giải khác nhau về sự mai một của chuyện khoa cử nói riêng và văn hóa truyền thống nói chung nhưng cơ bản nhất là việc người Pháp đến, người Pháp muốn chúng ta thay đổi theo họ. Và nếu nhìn ở góc độ quy luật thì ở thời đại Đông - Tây đụng chạm mang tính bản lề đó thì sự thay đổi cũng là điều tất yếu thôi.

- Về phía người Pháp, giai đoạn từ 1907-1912, họ rất nỗ lực loại bỏ truyền thống cựu học. Họ quan niệm, đấy là truyền thống của văn hóa Trung Hoa, phải sớm loại bỏ để kiến tạo nên một lớp văn hóa mới, chịu ảnh hưởng của họ. Và họ đã có kinh nghiệm làm điều này ở châu Phi, từ vài chục năm về trước.

Ở đấy, họ xóa dấu vết văn hóa bản địa khá dễ dàng. Vì sao vậy? Vì châu Phi thời kỳ ấy vẫn ảnh hưởng bởi hình thức bộ tộc và trình độ phát triển thì kém hơn trình độ phát triển của châu Á. Tiếng nói và chữ viết gần như chưa có.

- Chỉ là chữ viết thôi chứ. Sao lại là tiếng nói, thưa ông?

- À! Tiếng nói chủ yếu của họ là tiếng địa phương nhưng nên nhớ không phải là cứ nói ra miệng thì đều giống nhau đâu. Ai nghiên cứu một chút sẽ thấy từng có những bộ lạc sống tách biệt trong rừng, toàn bộ ngôn ngữ có khi chỉ khoảng 1.000 từ là hết. Họ nói nhưng nói những điều cực đơn giản.

Còn một ngôn ngữ lên đến hàng chục ngàn từ, hàng trăm nghìn từ trong từ điển, phản ánh được nhiều mặt, nhiều bình diện, nhiều lĩnh vực, nhiều góc khuất lại khác. Kiểu tiếng nói này xóa khó hơn nhiều, thậm chí không xóa nổi.

Trên thế giới, có những giai đoạn trung bình một năm mất vài chục ngôn ngữ. Mất hẳn luôn. Ngay cả đến thời hiện đại, cũng có giai đoạn mỗi năm thế giới mất khoảng chục ngôn ngữ. Cho nên những ngôn ngữ nào còn sót lại thì đấy là một may mắn, một hạnh ngộ của dân tộc mang ngôn ngữ ấy. Nếu có chữ viết riêng nữa thì càng quý.

Cho nên những dân tộc đã có ngôn ngữ rồi thì đừng có mà đánh mất. Anh phải bảo lưu nó, phát triển nó bằng ý thức của anh, cùng sự trưởng thành trong nền văn hóa của anh.

- Giờ trở lại với câu chuyện người Pháp muốn xóa truyền thống cựu học và văn hóa Việt Nam...

- Thực dân là gì? Thực dân hiểu nôm na nghĩa là trồng dân của mình vào. Mà dân ở đây không phải là con người sinh học mà là con người văn hóa. Nghĩa là trồng cái văn hóa của mình vào đấy. Còn thuộc địa, trong tiếng Pháp có nghĩa là những cột mốc. Thực dân đi tới đâu thì cắm cột mốc của mình ở đấy. Hiểu đơn giản là thế.

- Mà ở Việt Nam lúc đó, muốn trồng dân, cắm cột mốc thì phải phá đi văn hóa Hán vốn đã ảnh hưởng ở mảnh đất này cả ngàn năm.

- Không chỉ là văn hóa Hán mà còn là văn hóa bản địa của chính Việt Nam mình nữa. Bởi lúc bấy giờ, chữ Hán đã bị Việt hóa từ lâu rồi. Thậm chí, lúc đó người Việt Nam dùng chữ Hán theo cách của mình.

Cho nên mới có câu chuyện ông Nguyễn Du, trừ Truyện Kiều và Văn tế thập loại chúng sinh thì tác phẩm còn lại chủ yếu là chữ Hán, thế mà khi cụ đi sứ sang Trung Quốc thì vẫn phải có phiên dịch. Mà từ trước nữa, các sứ bộ nhà Lê khi sang Trung Quốc cũng đều phải dùng phiên dịch cả.

Tức là chúng ta đã Việt hóa chữ Hán và nói nó theo cách của mình. Đơn giản như người Trung Quốc sử dụng 4 thanh là "bình - thượng - khứ nhập" nhưng người Việt Nam lại sử dụng 6 thanh: thanh không, thanh sắc, thanh huyền, thanh hỏi, thanh ngã, thanh nặng. Thế cho nên triều đình Trung Quốc từng nhận xét tiếng nói của người Nam là thứ tiếng ríu rít như chim. Thứ tiếng ấy phải qua mấy lần phiên dịch mới hiểu được.

- Tức là người Pháp muốn trồng cái văn hóa của họ vào mảnh đất này thì phải làm mọi cách nhổ đi văn hóa Hán và văn hóa bản địa ở mảnh đất này. Nhưng điều này không dễ dàng như khi họ làm ở châu Phi?

- Bây giờ nhìn lại những cuốn sách của các giáo sĩ, những người phương Tây đầu tiên vào đây thì có thể thấy họ chính là những người bên ngoài đầu tiên nhận ra rằng: à hóa ra ở đây có một văn hóa khác. Nó khác so với mình đã đành mà còn khác so với cả Trung Quốc nữa. Và họ nảy lên ý định tạo ra một chữ viết mới để ký âm cái tộc người không giống Trung Quốc này.

Nỗ lực ấy, một cách vô thức đã khiến họ làm nên một công tích lịch sử cho người Việt Nam: đó là đặt nền móng cho chữ Quốc ngữ mà chúng ta dùng hôm nay. Nhiều người nói phúc cho người Việt đã có một hệ ký âm mới, tạo nên một công cụ nhận thức, công cụ thông tin cực kỳ quan trọng.

Và chính những biến động văn hóa - biến động chữ nghĩa như thế nên ở các thế kỷ 18, 19 người Việt có học thức cao có thể sử dụng cùng lúc 3 ngôn ngữ, đó là chữ Hán, chữ Nôm và chữ Quốc ngữ. Chưa nói là khi thực dân vào thì họ còn bắt học cả tiếng Pháp nữa.

- Nếu chữ Hán, chữ Nôm điển hình cho cựu học thì chữ Quốc ngữ và tiếng Pháp điển hình cho tân học. Và cuộc đụng chạm tân - cựu ấy khiến chúng ta vừa mất, vừa được về văn hóa, thưa ông?

- Lúc đầu đại đa số nhà Nho dị ứng với cả chữ Quốc ngữ lẫn tiếng Pháp. Vì chữ Quốc ngữ bị coi là thứ chữ của dân ngoại đạo, còn tiếng Pháp là tiếng của kẻ thù. Về mặt dân tộc, tiếng của kẻ thù không thể chấp nhận được.

Về mặt đạo lý, ý thức hệ của kẻ ngoại đạo càng không thể chấp nhận. Chỉ có một số ít nhà Nho thấy được nhu cầu cần phải hiểu nó, để hiểu một truyền thống văn hóa khác, tri thức khác. Số ít này là những ai? Một là những người học chữ Hán nhưng lại theo đạo Thiên chúa, tiêu biểu là Nguyễn Trường Tộ, Trương Vĩnh Ký.

Ngay từ khi Việt Nam chưa bị chinh phục hoàn toàn, Nguyễn Trường Tộ đã viết tới hàng chục điều trần gửi lên vua, đề nghị thay đổi nhận thức và quán tính của truyền thống cựu học. Các quan trong triều phần lớn đều lên án, nghi ngại, dè chừng. Mà cứ nghi ngại, dè chừng thì thời gian cứ trôi đi và đất nước cứ lạc hậu.

Đối tượng thứ hai mà ngày nay chúng ta phải quan tâm nhiều hơn, đó là những người tuy xuất thân vẫn là cựu học những lại có hoàn cảnh để trở thành những người tân học bất đắc dĩ. Đó là các sứ thần như Phạm Phú Thứ, Phan Thanh Giản..., những người mà có thời kỳ chúng ta nghĩ một chiều rằng họ là tay sai thuần túy.

Nhưng, giờ nghiên cứu lại mới thấy thứ nhất, họ là những nhà khoa bảng lớn trong truyền thống cựu học và thứ hai, lại là người đa văn quảng kiến, hiểu biết rộng, vượt ra ngoài khuôn khổ cũ. Họ tha thiết đề nghị cải cách. Cho nên mới hình thành trong triều một lực lượng mà các sử gia một thời gọi là "phái chủ hòa".

Ở góc độ nghiên cứu thì những người ở "phái chủ hòa" mà đã có lúc bị gọi luôn là "phái chủ hàng" thực chất lại là những người có tư tưởng cách tân.

- Thưa giáo sư, có lẽ sau một độ lùi lịch sử, chúng ta phải hết sức bình tĩnh để nhìn nhận lại các giá trị của cái gọi là "canh tân" và "thủ cựu". Tôi xin tiếp tục phân tích một biểu hiện rõ nhất của canh tân là xóa bỏ chữ Hán, chữ Nôm, dùng chữ Quốc ngữ, đã có lúc chúng ta nghĩ rằng đấy là một phương thức quan trọng giúp hướng đến văn minh phương Tây, từ đó hy vọng về một sự phát triển vượt bậc. Nhưng, bây giờ nhìn lại chúng ta thấy rằng một số nước ở Đông Á như Nhật Bản, Hàn Quốc, Đài Loan vẫn giữ lối chữ tượng hình truyền thống của họ, thế mà xét về tốc độ phát triển thì không thể nói họ chậm hơn ta. Ở đây, trong tôi có 2 kiến giải. Một là chữ nghĩa suy cho cùng chỉ là cái vỏ, không mang tính quyết định? Hai là, quả nhiên chữ nghĩa tác động đến tốc độ phát triển nhưng cùng với nó còn phải thực hiện những biện pháp khác nữa, chẳng hạn như phải tìm cách làm mới cái truyền thống, cái nội lực vốn có của mình. Quan điểm của giáo sư thế nào?

- Ở chỗ này phải rất mềm mại và hiểu đúng biện chứng của lịch sử. Theo tôi, cái mới nào cũng có mặt lợi mặt hại nhưng tính đi tính lại ở thời điểm ấy chúng ta sẽ thấy mặt lợi của nó là lớn hơn. Tuy nhiên, đi theo cái mới không có nghĩa là xóa bỏ sạch trơn cái cũ. Nếu chúng ta có đủ tầm nhìn để vừa đi theo cái mới, vừa giữ được những giá trị tích cực của cái cũ thì câu chuyện có thể đã khác rồi.

Nhìn ra thế giới sẽ thấy ở châu Âu, sau khi những chính quyền tách khỏi thời Trung cổ thì cái giá họ trả cũng lớn lắm. Nhưng rồi nước trước nước sau đều phục hưng cả.

00000000000000000000000000

Believe it or not, but you’ve hit the nail on the head. I, personally, don’t like to use terms like “prehistory” in the context of modern humans, and I genuinely believe that the “dividing line”, as you said, is and should be blurred.

Cro-Magnons (itself considered an obsolete term) were, without a doubt, hunter-gatherers. The most defining feature between cultures at that time was what kind of stone was used to make biface “knives”, how big those bifaces were, and maybe spearhead size. Bear in mind that when those early modern Homo sapiens entered Europe, there were still Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) living in the area. And those Neanderthals were more socio-culturally advanced. The first known specifically made musical instrument is a bone flute that a Neanderthal was buried with. As such, their society, without a doubt, would fall under the term “prehistoric”, if I’m forced into using that term, that is.

Ötzi came from an early bronze age society in Europe. Yes, his tattoos seem to align with acupuncture points (especially ones that coincide with his ailments). It’s quite possible, if not probable, that he came from a complex society - specifically one in which specialization of jobs occurred. There’s no denying it that the society in which he lived was completely different from the society that existed a millennia or two earlier, when hunter-gatherer tribes (or tribes who dabbled in basic horticulture) were still prominent in southern Europe, but using the older, traditional (and again, in my opinion, archaic) definition, they both are “prehistoric” societies. I would disagree with this term. If you held a gun at my head and told me to place a label on it, I would reluctantly choose something along the lines of “protohistoric”, but I still think that “early bronze age complex society” is a much better descriptor.

As for the Taiwanese tribes, I did a quick look into their history. The earliest culture that I could find is known as the Dapenkeng culture (3500 BCE - 2500 BCE). They had adzes made of basalt, stones that were used as fishing weights, and some pottery. Their society appears to have done basic horticulture, but mostly relied on fishing. I don’t know enough about it, but judging by what I see, I don’t know if this would qualify as a complex society, which, as I keep pointing out, is an important milestone in my opinion. That said, there does appear to be some basic trading that happened, but mostly it appears to be one-sided - specifically, traders from the Philippines would come and trade for raw jade (in other words, the Philippine traders were from a complex society, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Taiwanese tribes were).

Again, not knowing a massive amount, it appears to me that we don’t really get the development of complex societies on the island until around the year 400 CE. It is at this time that we see artistry and metalworking begin to develop, the latter of which essentially requires job specialization. That industry also seems to have been introduced to the island from outside (going straight from a neolithic to an iron age culture).

I think this kind of digging (no pun intended) into the past, and attempting to understand how the society worked is a much better way of defining what is meant by “history”.

I strongly trust the Liangzhu culture is exactly the Yu Dynasty (虞朝), which ruled by the lord Shun. There have clearly evidence to show the Liangzhu culture suffered damage of flood and rising sea levels, they built lots of dams surrend its capital but they failed in final.

It’s too close to the story of Yu the Great (大禹), his father Gun helped the lord Shun to solve the flood, but he failed, the capital was flooded, he was killed and the whole nation except few people lived in the MaQiao culture, have to go north, to the Yellow river area. And in final, Yu the Great regained power through flood control, and his son founded Xia Dynasty in somewhere, just like someone said, Erlitou maybe.

Although Xia Dynasty has not been located in which place, but I trust the Yu Dynasty must be in Liangzhu culture.

Mid-24th century BCE climate anomaly - Wikipedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The mid-24th century BCE climate anomaly is the period, between 2354–2345 BCE, of consistently, reduced annual temperatures that are reconstructed from consecutive abnormally narrow, Irish oak tree rings. These tree rings are indicative of a period of catastrophically reduced growth in Irish trees during that period. This range of dates also matches the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age in the British Isles and a period of widespread societal collapse in the Near East. It has been proposed that this anomalous downturn in the climate might have been the result of comet debris suspended in the atmosphere. [1] [2] In 1997, Marie-Agnès Courty proposed that a natural disaster involving wildfires, floods, and an air blast of over 100 megatons power occurred about 2350 BCE. This proposal is based on unusual "dust" deposits which have been reported from archaeological sites in Mesopotamia that are a few hundred kilometres from each other. [3] In later papers, Courty subsequently revised the date of this event from 2350 BCE to 2000 BCE. [4] [5] Based only upon the analysis of satellite imagery , Umm al Binni lake in southern Iraq has been suggested as a possible extraterrestrial impact crater and possible cause of this natural disaster. [6] [7] More recent sources have argued for a formation of the lake through the subsidence of the underlying basement fault blocks . [8] [9] Baillie and McAneney's 2015 discussion of this climate anomaly discusses its abnormally narrow Irish tree rings and the anomalous dust deposits of Courty. However, this paper lacks any mention of Umm al Binni lake. [2] See also [ edit ] References [ edit ] ^ Baillie, M.G.L., 2007. Tree-rings indicate global environmental downturns that could have been caused by comet debris. In Comet/asteroid impacts and human society (pp. 105-122). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. ^ a b Baillie, M. G. L.; McAneney, Jonny (October 2015). Why we shouldn't ignore the mid-24th century BC when discussing the 2200-2000 BC climate anomaly . Vol. 2. Conference: 7th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany October 23-26, 2014 in Halle (Saale)At: Halle (Saale), GermanyVolume: 2200 BC – A climatic breakdown as a cause for the collapse of the Old World?. pp. 833–44. ^ Courty, M.-A., 1997. Causes And Effects Of The 2350 BC Middle East Anomaly Evidenced By Micro-debris Fallout, Surface Combustion And Soil Explosion SIS Conference. Natural Catastrophes during Bronze Age Civilisations (11th-13th July 1997) . ^ Courty M.-A., 1998. The soil record of an exceptional event at 4000 BP in the Middle East. In: Peiser BJ, Palmer T, and Bailey ME (eds) Natural catastrophes during Bronze Age civilisations: archaeological, geological, astronomical and cultural Perspectives (pp. 93-108). British Archaeological Reports S728, Archaeopress, Oxford. ^ Courty, M.-A., 2001. Evidence at Tell Brak for the Late EDIII/Early Akkadian Air Blast Event (4 kyr B.P.). In: Oates D, Oates J, a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-24th_century_BCE_climate_anomaly

Consistent with the ending of Liangzhu culture, Mid-24h century was the age of global floods, the age of Noah in bible and the great Yu in China.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

=========

==============

Kinh Dương Vương (Hán tự: 涇陽王; "King of Kinh Dương") is an ancient Vietnamese figure, mentioned in the 15th-century work Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư by having unified all the tribes within his territory into one state, and as the founder of the Hồng Bàng dynasty. He is considered the first sovereign of the Vietnamese people, and was the father of Lạc Long Quân.^[1]

Kinh Dương Vương's personal name was Lộc Tục (Hán tự: 祿續). According to the 15th-century Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư, he ruled over Xích Quỷ (赤鬼, later renamed Văn Lang) starting in 2879 BC. Kinh Dương Vương's father was Đế Minh (帝明, "Emperor Ming" of Chinese and Vietnamese mythology), the descendant of Thần Nông.^[2] His mother was Vụ Tiên Nữ (婺僊女, lit. "Beautiful Immortal Lady, Beautiful Goddess"). Kinh Dương Vương married Thần Long, who was the daughter of Động Đình Quân (Lord of Dongting) and mother of Kinh Dương Vương's successor Lạc Long Quân.^[1]

Today Kinh Dương Vương features with other ancient figures such as Thánh Gióng, Âu Cơ, Sơn Tinh and Thủy Tinh, in elementary school texts.^[3] A popular shrine, and presumed tomb of Kinh Dương Vương, is located in the village of An Lữ, Thuận Thành District, Bắc Ninh Province .

Legends[edit]

According to Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư, a book written in a Confucian perspective, Kinh Dương Vương originates from China: Emperor Ming, the great-great-grandson of the mythological Chinese ruler Shennong, went on a tour of inspection south of the Nanling Mountains, settled down and married a certain Beautiful Immortal Lady (鶩僊女 Vụ Tiên Nữ), who then gave birth to an intelligent son named Lộc Tục (祿續).

After Emperor Ming passed the throne to his eldest son, Emperor Ly(釐) to be king of the North, and Lộc Tục was appointed to be king of the South, his title Kinh Dương Vương (涇陽王). Kinh Duong Vuong was king and ruled from about 2879 BC onwards.^[4] The territory of the country under Kinh Dương Vương was claimed to be large, reaching Dongting Lake in the north, the Husunxing (胡猻精; SV: Hồ Tôn Tinh) country (i.e. Champa) in the south, the East Sea (東海, part of the Pacific Ocean) in the east and Ba Shu (巴蜀; now in today Sichuan, China) in the west. Lĩnh Nam chích quái recorded the legend that the king vigorously expelled a murderous god named Xương Cuồng. He married the daughter of the King of Động Đình (洞庭) Lake, named Thần Long (神龍 "Divine Dragon"), who gave birth to a son named Sùng Lãm (崇纜). Sùng Lãm would later succeed Kinh Dương Vương as ruler, titled Dragon Lord of Lạc (貉龍君; SV: Lạc Long Quân).

Worship[edit]

Worship of Kinh Dương Vương in Vietnam is not as popular as worship of Shennong, the deity who is Hùng Vương's ancestor and a very respected one in Vietnam's agricultural beliefs; Đàn Xã Tắc(壇社稷) was established annually by feudal dynasties to worship .

Thượng Lãng communal house in Minh Hòa commune, Hưng Hà district, Thái Bình province is the oldest relic worshiping Kinh Dương Vương; Legend has it since the Đinh dynasty .

The Kinh Dương Vương Mausoleum and Temple (locally called Lăng và Đền thờ) in Bắc Ninh have long been classified by the Vietnamese feudal dynasties as shrines to worship the emperors, each time the National Ceremony will bring to the army to worship and worship people solemnly. In 2013 , Bắc Ninh province announced a plan to preserve, embellish and promote the population of national historical and cultural relics of Mausoleum and Kinh Dương Vương Temple with a total investment of more than 491 billion VND.^[5] The project is divided into 4 main construction categories, including: relic conservation space, focusing on repairing and embellishing the relics of the Mausoleum and Kinh Dương Vương Temple, temple grounds, tomb gardens; relic value space includes: ancestral monument, cultural festival square, cultural display ... accompanied by ancillary services to develop spiritual cultural tourism, attracting tourists and technical infrastructure, leveling, roads, electricity lines.^[6] At present, the Kinh Duong Vuong tomb and temple relic is worshiped in Á Lữ village, Đại Đồng Thành commune, Thuận Thành district, Bắc Ninh province .

Other theories[edit]

Many historical researchers suspected that Kinh Dương Vương was a legendary figure based on elements from the novella Story of Liu Yi (柳毅 SV: Liễu Nghị truyện).^[7] Historical researcher Trần Trọng Dương pointed out that:^[8]

The Kinh Dương Vương story has [signs of] being copied from the novella Story of Liu Yi (SV: Liễu Nghị truyện) by Li Chaowei (SV: Lý Triều Uy) composed in the Tang dynasty. The story can be summarized as follows: Liu Yi was a failed contestant; while on his way he met a beautiful young goatherdess with a worn-out appearance. The woman said that she was the daughter of the Dragon King in Dongting Lake (SV: Động Đình); she married the second son of [the Dragon Lord in] Jing River (SV: Kinh Xuyên), but was mistreated and was forced to herd goats; so she wanted Liu Yi to send a letter to [her] father and report her situation. Liu Yi brought the letter to the Dragon Palace. The [Dongting Lake's] Dragon King's younger brother, [the Dragon Lord in] Qiantang [river] (SV: Tiền Đường), was so angry that he killed the son of [the Dragon Lord in] Jing river, saved her, and intended to marry her to Liu Yi. Yi refused and just asked to [be allowed to] return [home]; and he was rewarded by the Dragon King with plenty of gold and silver and gems. Afterwards, Yi got married, yet every time he got married his wife would die. The daughter of the Dragon King, seeing that, recalled that their past fateful encounter. She wanted to repay him, so she turned herself into a beautiful lady and married Liu Yi as her husband. Afterwards, the couple became immortals.

This view has been expressed by many Vietnamese historians since the 18th century: for example, Ngô Thì Sĩ in Prefatory Compilation to Đại Việt's Historical Records^[9]

Now we're examining what was written in the Outer Annals: The year of Nhâm Tuất [the sexagenary cycle's 59th year]? When had been the beginning year of Giáp Tí [the same cycle's 1st year]? [The authors] recorded the taboo names of King of Kinh Dương and Dragon Lord of Lạc, why omitted [those of] Hùng kings? Before the Five Emperors' time, [rulers] had not been called kings [王; standard Chinese: wáng; SV: vương]. What kind of name was the name Xích Quỷ? Why used it as a national name? A series of blatantly preposterous things only fit to be discarded. That was the fault of someone garrulous who found that story in The Story about Liễu Nghị. In the Story [about Liễu Nghị], it was said that the daughter of the [Dragon] King in Dongting Lake had been married off to the second son of the [Dragon] King in Jing River; [the story about Liễu Nghị] was irresponsibly imagined to be [the story about] King of Kinh Dương. Now that there have been husband and wife, there shall also be father and son, king and subject. Consequently, [someone] wove it into a written prose, just so there would be enough generations of kings. The historians, accordingly, chose to use it and took it as factual. All of those were stories taken from Selection of Strange Tales in Lingnan and Collection of Stories about the Shady and Spiritual Việt Realm; just as Northern historians had taken stories from The Classic of Southern Florescence or the Chapters of Honglie.

as well as the Nguyễn dynasty's historians in The Imperially Ordered Outlined and Detailed Texts Thoroughly Mirroring of the History of Viet

茲奉查之舊史，鴻厖氏紀，涇陽王、貉龍君之稱緣上古，世屬渺茫，作者憑空撰出，恐無所取信，又附小說家唐柳毅傳以為印證。
[Among] the old histories which [we've] obediently examined just now, the records of the Hồng Bàng clan, king of Kinh Dương, Dragon Lord of Lạc (those [which were] stated to stem from the distant past, in a vague and remote age), the author(s) relied on nothing to write [those], [yet] he(they) still feared not being taken as credible; so he(they) added [elements from] [a] Tang novellist's Story of Liu Yi as proofs.^[10]^[11]

Consequently, Emperor Tự Đức of the Nguyen dynasty decided to exclude King of Kinh Duong and Dragon Lord of Lạc from their historiography as this did not conform with the Confucian ideals of the country.

References[edit]

^ ^a ^b Ngô Sĩ Liên. "Ky Hong Bang thi". Đại Việt Sử ký Toàn thư. p. 2. Archived from the original on 2012-09-28. Retrieved 2012-11-02.
^ Vu, Hong Lien (2016). Rice and Baguette: A History of Food in Vietnam. ISBN 9781780237046.
^ Marie-Carine Lall, Edward Vickers Education As a Political Tool in Asia 2009 -Page 143 "Children learn about the legends of the nation's birth, which feature heroic figures such as Kinh Dương Vương, Âu Cơ ... Sơn Tinh – Thủy Tinh, Thánh Gióng.22 The distinction between what is legend and what is scientific history is unclear."

===================

Ông cho rằng lịch sử Đài Loan tiếp diễn cách đây 400 năm từ di sản của thổ dân Austronesian, cư dân đầu tiên.

-----------------

King	Given name	Probable Reign, and line of descent
Kinh Dương Vương (涇陽王)	Lộc Tục (祿續)	2879 BC – 2794 BC, Càn line (支乾)
Lạc Long Quân (貉龍君)	Sùng Lãm (崇纜)	2793 BC – 2525 BC, Khảm line (支坎)
Hùng Lân vương(雄麟王), Hùng King III	Lân Lang	2524 – 2253 BC,Cấn line (支艮)
Hùng Diệp Vương(雄曄王), Hùng King IV	Bửu Lang	2252 – 1913 BC,Chấn line (支震)
Hùng Hy Vương, Hùng King V	Viên Lang	1912 – 1713 BC,Tốn line (支巽)
Hùng Huy Vương(雄暉王), Hùng King VI	Pháp Hải Lang	1712 – 1632 BC,Ly line (支離)
Hùng Chiêu vương(雄昭王), Hùng King VII	Lang Liêu	1631 – 1432 BC,Khôn line(支坤)
Hùng Vĩ vương(雄暐王) Hùng King VIII	Thừa Vân Lang	1431 – 1332 BC,Đoài line (支兌)
Hùng Định vương(雄定王), Hùng King IX	Quân Lang	1331 – 1252 BC,Giáp line (支甲)
Hùng Hi vương(雄曦王), Hùng King X	Hùng Hải Lang	1251 – 1162 BC,Ất line (支乙)
Hùng Trinh Vương(雄楨王), Hùng King XI	Hưng Đức Lang	1161 – 1055 BC,Bính line (支丙)
Hùng Vũ Vương(雄武王), Hùng King XII	Đức Hiền Lang	1054 – 969 BC, Đinh line (支丁)
Hùng Việt Vương(雄越王), Hùng King XIII	Tuấn Lang	968 – 854 BC,Mậu line (支戊)
Hùng Anh Vương(雄英王), Hùng King XIV	Chân Nhân Lang	853 – 755 BC, Kỷ line (支己)
Hùng Triệu Vương(雄朝王), Hùng King XV	Cảnh Chiêu Lang	754 – 661 BC,Canh line (支庚)
Hùng Tạo Vương(雄造王), Hùng King XVI	Đức Quân Lang	660 – 569 BC,Tân line (支辛)
Hùng Nghị Vương(雄毅王), Hùng King XVII	Bảo Quân Lang	568 – 409 BC,Nhâm line (支壬)
Hùng Duệ Vương(雄睿王), Hùng King XVIII	Lý Văn Lang or Mai An Tiêm	408 – 258 BC,Quý line (支癸)

[15] In the case of travel writings, the Qing literati use of "raw" and "cooked" are closer in meaning to "unfamiliar" and "familiar", on the basis of culture/language and interaction with Han settlers.^[14]

[67] One account of this "identity shift" occurs in the area called Rujryck by the Dutch, now part of Taipei city. A document signed by the village heads dating from the seventh year of the Qianlong era states: "We originally had no surnames, please bestow on us the Han surnames, Pan, Chen, Li, Wang, Tan, etc."^[65]

[FOOTNOTEStainton2002-1] Stainton (2002).

[2] Rigger, Shelley (2013). Why Taiwan Matters: Small Island, Global Powerhouse. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4422-3002-6.

[3] "One Island, Twenty Tongues". Ketagalan Media. 3 May 2017. Archived from the original on 4 May 2017. Retrieved 6 May 2017.

[FOOTNOTEHattaway200339,_93,_425-4] Hattaway (2003), pp. 39, 93, 425.

[FOOTNOTEBlust1999-5] Blust (1999).

[6] Hung, Hsiao-Chun; Iizuka, Yoshiyuki; Bellwood, Peter; Nguyen, Kim Dung; Bellina, Bérénice; Silapanth, Praon; Dizon, Eusebio; Santiago, Rey; Datan, Ipoi; Manton, Jonathan H. (2007). "Ancient jades map 3,000 years of prehistoric exchange in Southeast Asia". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (50): 19745–19750. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707304104. PMC 2148369. PMID 18048347.

[7] Trejaut, Jean A.; Poloni, Estella S.; Yen, Ju-Chen; Lai, Ying-Hui; Loo, Jun-Hun; Lee, Chien-Liang; He, Chun-Lin; Lin, Marie (2014-01-01). "Taiwan Y-chromosomal DNA variation and its relationship with Island Southeast Asia". BMC Genetics. 15: 77. doi:10.1186/1471-2156-15-77. ISSN 1471-2156. PMC 4083334. PMID 24965575.

[FOOTNOTEZeitounYu2005167-8] Zeitoun & Yu (2005), p. 167.

[FOOTNOTEHsu199195–9-9] Hsu (1991), pp. 95–9.

[LKU-10] Kuo, Lily; Chen, Alicia (4 April 2022). "Taiwan's Han Chinese seek a new identity among the island's tribes". Washington Post. Retrieved 24 April 2022. Republished as: Kuo, Lily; Chen, Alicia (9 April 2022). "'Indigenous in spirit, even if not by blood': Han Chinese seek a new identity among Taiwan's tribes". The Independent. Retrieved 24 April 2022.

[FOOTNOTEAnderson2000283–90-11] Anderson (2000), pp. 283–90.

[FOOTNOTEHarrell19965–20-12] Harrell (1996), pp. 5–20.

[FOOTNOTETeng200461–5-13] Teng (2004), pp. 61–5.

[14] Teng (2004), pp. 126–27.

[FOOTNOTEHarrell199619-16] Harrell (1996), p. 19.

[FOOTNOTEDiamond1995100-17] Diamond (1995), p. 100.

[FOOTNOTECrossley1999281–95-18] Crossley (1999), pp. 281–95.

[FOOTNOTEDikotter19928–9-19] Dikotter (1992), pp. 8–9.

[FOOTNOTETeng2004125–27-20] Teng (2004), pp. 125–27.

[FOOTNOTETai1999294-21] Tai (1999), p. 294.

[FOOTNOTEHarrison200154–5-22] Harrison (2001), pp. 54–5.

[FOOTNOTEHarrison200160-23] Harrison (2001), p. 60.

[FOOTNOTEBrown2001163_''n6''-24] Brown (2001), p. 163 n6.

[25] "Saisiyat people launch referendum initiative". National Affairs. 28 April 2006. Retrieved 22 August 2010.^{[permanent dead link]}

[FOOTNOTETeng2004104–5-26] Teng (2004), pp. 104–5.

[FOOTNOTETsuchida198362-27] Tsuchida (1983), p. 62.

[FOOTNOTELi199222–3-28] Li (1992), pp. 22–3.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd199351–61-29] Shepherd (1993), pp. 51–61.

[30] NDL-dl-DSS-front 臺灣總督府第十五統計書 [Governor-General of Taiwan Statistic Yearbook 1911] (in Japanese). Governor-General of Taiwan. 1913. p. 46. OCLC 674052936. Archived from the original on 2016-04-22.

[31] "The latest figures of registration of Siraya people". Ethnic Affairs Commission of Tainan City Government. 2016-12-02. Archived from the original on 2018-05-30. Retrieved 2018-05-29.

[32] "呼應蔡英文平埔政策！花蓮富里首開「鄉定原民」先例，2年過去卻不滿百人登記是發生啥事呢？". Mata Taiwan. 2016-08-25. Retrieved 2018-05-29.

[33] "部落大小聲節目加蚋埔部落錄製平埔議題". TITV. 2017-11-10. Archived from the original on 2017-12-05. Retrieved 2018-05-29.

[34] "西拉雅平埔族註記、高市熟男266人.熟女207人". Kaohsiung City Government. 2016-09-13. Archived from the original on 2018-05-29. Retrieved 2018-05-29.

[FOOTNOTEEricsson2004-35] Ericsson (2004).

[ChinaPost-36] "Gov't officially recognizes two more aboriginal people groups". China Post. CNA. 27 June 2014. Archived from the original on 11 November 2014. Retrieved 13 December 2014.

[FOOTNOTELee2003-37] Lee (2003).

[FOOTNOTEChuang2005-38] Chuang (2005).

[FOOTNOTEBrown2004-39] Brown (2004).

[40] "Kavalan become official Aboriginal group". Taipei City Government. 5 May 2005.

[41] Diplomat, James X. Morris, The. "Meet Taiwan's Newest Official Indigenous Group". The Diplomat. Retrieved 2018-07-31.

[FOOTNOTECheng2007-42] Cheng (2007).

[FOOTNOTEShihLoa2008-43] Shih & Loa (2008).

[44] "鄧州"台灣村"高山族的歷史記憶-台灣問題論文-論文網". www.lunwendata.com.

[45] "FEATURE: Seeking headhunter roots in Taiwan". Taipei Times. 4 April 2010. Retrieved 1 March 2021.

[FOOTNOTELiu200275–98-46] Liu (2002), pp. 75–98.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd19931–10-47] Shepherd (1993), pp. 1–10.

[FOOTNOTEKang2003115–26-48] Kang (2003), pp. 115–26.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd199558–63-49] Shepherd (1995), pp. 58–63.

[FOOTNOTEBlusseEverts200077–8-50] Blusse & Everts (2000), pp. 77–8.

[FOOTNOTEBrown200438–50-51] Brown (2004), pp. 38–50.

[FOOTNOTEBrown2004155–64-52] Brown (2004), pp. 155–64.

[FOOTNOTEHarrison200160–7-53] Harrison (2001), pp. 60–7.

[FOOTNOTEDuara1995-54] Duara (1995).

[55] Brown 2004. pp. 156–7.

[56] Brown 2004. p. 162.

[57] Brown 2004. p. 157.

[58] "Pazeh writers get awards for preserving language". Taipei Times. 2016-09-04. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

[59] "Pazeh poets honored at ceremony". Taipei Times. 2016-09-04. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

[60] "Pingpu activists demand government recognition". Taipei Times. 2016-09-04. Archived from the original on 2016-08-12. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

[FOOTNOTEHsieh2006-61] Hsieh (2006).

[FOOTNOTEShepherd1993-62] Shepherd (1993).

[FOOTNOTELamley1981282-63] Lamley (1981), p. 282.

[FOOTNOTEMeskill1979253–55-64] Meskill (1979), pp. 253–55.

[FOOTNOTEBrown1996-65] Brown (1996).

[66] (Pan 2002:30)

[FOOTNOTELiu200231–2-68] Liu (2002), pp. 31–2.

[FOOTNOTEEbrey199619–34-69] Ebrey (1996), pp. 19–34.

[FOOTNOTEEbrey199626-70] Ebrey (1996), p. 26.

[pan-71] The change involves only the addition of a water radical to the character (Shepherd 1993:384)

[FOOTNOTEPan1996440–62-72] Pan (1996), pp. 440–62.

[FOOTNOTEHong1997310–15-73] Hong (1997), pp. 310–15.

[FOOTNOTEHsu1980-74] Hsu (1980).

[names-75] Low (2005) states: "According to a documentary released by the Democratic Progressive Party's ethnic affairs department, although aborigines are now allowed to use their traditional names following a 1995 amendment to the Personal Names Act, only 890 out of the total of 460,000 indigenous Taiwanese have done so because of the past stigma attached to the names and the complicated formalities involved"

[FOOTNOTELoa2007-76] Loa (2007).

[77] Lin, Chang-shun; Sabatier, Luke (1 April 2022). "Constitutional Court strikes down legal clause on Indigenous status". Central News Agency. Retrieved 1 April 2022.

[FOOTNOTEHillSoaresMorminaMacaulay2007-78] Hill et al. (2007).

[FOOTNOTEBirdHopeTaylor2004-79] Bird, Hope & Taylor (2004).

[FOOTNOTERolettJiaoLin2002307–8,_313-80] Rolett, Jiao & Lin (2002), pp. 307–8, 313.

[81] Diamond, Jared M. (2000). "Taiwan's gift to the world". Nature. 403 (6771): 709–710. Bibcode:2000Natur.403..709D. doi:10.1038/35001685. PMID 10693781.

[82] Mijares, Armand Salvador B. (2006). "The Early Austronesian Migration To Luzon: Perspectives From The Peñablanca Cave Sites". Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association. 26: 72–78. doi:10.7152/bippa.v26i0.11995.

[Gray-et-al2009-83] Gray RD, Drummond AJ, Greenhill SJ (January 2009). "Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement". Science. 323 (5913): 479–83. Bibcode:2009Sci...323..479G. doi:10.1126/science.1166858. PMID 19164742. S2CID 29838345.

[Pawley2002-84] Pawley A (2002). "The Austronesian dispersal: languages, technologies and people". In Bellwood PS, Renfrew C (eds.). Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. pp. 251–273. ISBN 978-1-902937-20-5.

[Hung-85] Hung, Hsiao-chun; Nguyen, Kim Dung; Bellwood, Peter; Carson, Mike T. (2013). "Coastal Connectivity: Long-Term Trading Networks Across the South China Sea". Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology. 8 (3): 384–404. doi:10.1080/15564894.2013.781085. S2CID 129020595.

[hung2006-86] Hung H, Iizuka Y, Bellwood P (2006). "Taiwan Jade in the Context of Southeast Asian Archaeology". In Bacus EA, Glover IC, Pigott VC (eds.). Uncovering Southeast Asia's Past: Selected Papers from the 10th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists : the British Museum, London, 14th–17th September 2004. NUS Press. pp. 203–215. ISBN 9789971693510.

[Bellwood2011jade-87] Bellwood P, Hung H, Iizuka Y (2011). "Taiwan Jade in the Philippines: 3,000 Years of Trade and Long-distance Interaction" (PDF). In Benitez-Johannof P (ed.). Paths of Origins: The Austronesian Heritage. Artpostasia Pte Ltd. pp. 30–41. ISBN 9789719429203.

[Hung2007-88] Hung HC, Iizuka Y, Bellwood P, Nguyen KD, Bellina B, Silapanth P, et al. (December 2007). "Ancient jades map 3,000 years of prehistoric exchange in Southeast Asia". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104 (50): 19745–50. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707304104. JSTOR 25450787. PMC 2148369. PMID 18048347.

[89] Tsang, Cheng-hwa (2000), "Recent advances in the Iron Age archaeology of Taiwan", Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 20: 153–158, doi:10.7152/bippa.v20i0.11751

[90] Turton, M. (2021). Notes from central Taiwan: Our brother to the south. Taiwan's relations with the Philippines date back millenia, so it's a mystery that it's not the jewel in the crown of the New Southbound Policy. Taiwan Times.

[91] Everington, K. (2017). Birthplace of Austronesians is Taiwan, capital was Taitung: Scholar. Taiwan News.

[92] Bellwood, P., H. Hung, H., Lizuka, Y. (2011). Taiwan Jade in the Philippines: 3,000 Years of Trade and Long-distance Interaction. Semantic Scholar.

[93] Wang, Li-Ying; Marwick, Ben (1 October 2020). "Standardization of ceramic shape: A case study of Iron Age pottery from northeastern Taiwan". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 33: 102554. Bibcode:2020JArSR..33j2554W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102554. S2CID 224904703.

[94] Wang, Li-Ying; Marwick, Ben (29 September 2020). "Trade ornaments as indicators of social changes resulting from indirect effects of colonialism in northeastern Taiwan". Archaeological Research in Asia. 24: 100226. doi:10.1016/j.ara.2020.100226. S2CID 222117771.

[FOOTNOTEGold198624–8-95] Gold (1986), pp. 24–8.

[FOOTNOTEKang2003111–17-96] Kang (2003), pp. 111–17.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd199329–34-97] Shepherd (1993), pp. 29–34.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd199561–5-98] Shepherd (1995), pp. 61–5.

[FOOTNOTEAndrade2005296_''2n''-99] Andrade (2005), p. 296 2n.

[FOOTNOTEGold198610–11-100] Gold (1986), pp. 10–11.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd199552–3-101] Shepherd (1995), pp. 52–3.

[FOOTNOTEBlusseEverts200011–20-102] Blusse & Everts (2000), pp. 11–20.

[FOOTNOTECampbell1915240-103] Campbell (1915), p. 240.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd199566-104] Shepherd (1995), p. 66.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd199566–8-105] Shepherd (1995), pp. 66–8.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd1993451_''19n''-106] Shepherd (1993), p. 451 19n.

[FOOTNOTEAndrade2005303-107] Andrade (2005), p. 303.

[FOOTNOTEAndrade2005298-108] Andrade (2005), p. 298.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd199390-109] Shepherd (1993), p. 90.

[110] Shepherd1993, p. 59.

[111] Covell, Ralph R. (1998). Pentecost of the Hills in Taiwan: The Christian Faith Among the Original Inhabitants (illustrated ed.). Hope Publishing House. pp. 96–97. ISBN 0-932727-90-5.

[112] Hsin-Hui, Chiu (2008). The Colonial 'civilizing Process' in Dutch Formosa: 1624–1662. TANAP monographs on the history of the Asian-European interaction. Vol. 10 (illustrated ed.). BRILL. p. 222. ISBN 978-9004165076.

[113] Xing Hang (2016). Conflict and Commerce in Maritime East Asia: The Zheng Family and the Shaping of the Modern World, c.1620–1720. Cambridge University Press. p. 139. ISBN 978-1-316-45384-1.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd199392–103-114] Shepherd (1993), pp. 92–103.

[FOOTNOTEPickering1898116–18-115] Pickering (1898), pp. 116–18.

[FOOTNOTETeng200435–60-116] Teng (2004), pp. 35–60.

[FOOTNOTETsao1999331-117] Tsao (1999), p. 331.

[FOOTNOTEKnapp198055–68-118] Knapp (1980), pp. 55–68.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd199314–20-119] Shepherd (1993), pp. 14–20.

[conflict-120] "From 1684 to 1895, 159 major incidents of civil disturbances rocked Taiwan, including 74 armed clashes and 65 uprisings led by wanderers. During the 120 years from 1768 to 1887, approximately 57 armed clashes occurred, 47 of which broke out from 1768 to 1860" (Chen 1999:136).

[FOOTNOTEKerr19654-121] Kerr (1965), p. 4.

[FOOTNOTETwitchett2002228-122] Twitchett 2002, p. 228.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd1993128–29-123] Shepherd (1993), pp. 128–29.

[FOOTNOTEChen1997-124] Chen (1997).

[FOOTNOTEYe2019106-125] Ye 2019, p. 106.

[FOOTNOTEYe201991-126] Ye 2019, p. 91.

[FOOTNOTEYe201946-49-127] Ye 2019, p. 46-49.

[FOOTNOTEYe201949-50-128] Ye 2019, p. 49-50.

[FOOTNOTEYe201950-55-129] Ye 2019, p. 50-55.

[FOOTNOTEYe201955-56-130] Ye 2019, p. 55-56.

[FOOTNOTEYe201956-131] Ye 2019, p. 56.

[FOOTNOTEYe201956-57-132] Ye 2019, p. 56-57.

[FOOTNOTEYe201958-133] Ye 2019, p. 58.

[FOOTNOTEYe201959-61-134] Ye 2019, p. 59-61.

[migrate-135] For a detailed overview of the many migrations of Taiwanese indigenous tribes, see (Li 2001). For detailed map see Distribution of Austronesian in Taiwan depicting migration Archived 2007-06-21 at the Wayback Machine.

[FOOTNOTETsuchidaYamada19911–10-136] Tsuchida & Yamada (1991), pp. 1–10.

[FOOTNOTELi2001-137] Li (2001).

[FOOTNOTEBlusseEverts200011–12-138] Blusse & Everts (2000), pp. 11–12.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd19931–6-139] Shepherd (1993), pp. 1–6.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd199566–72-140] Shepherd (1995), pp. 66–72.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd1993391–95-141] Shepherd (1993), pp. 391–95.

[FOOTNOTEPan200236–7-142] Pan (2002), pp. 36–7.

[143] (Yeh 2003)

[FOOTNOTEYe201961-62-144] Ye 2019, p. 61-62.

[FOOTNOTEYe201962-145] Ye 2019, p. 62.

[FOOTNOTEYe201963-64-146] Ye 2019, p. 63-64.

[FOOTNOTEYe201964-65-147] Ye 2019, p. 64-65.

[FOOTNOTEYe201965-148] Ye 2019, p. 65.

[FOOTNOTERubinstein1999191-149] Rubinstein 1999, p. 191.

[FOOTNOTEYe20191,_10,_174-150] Ye 2019, p. 1, 10, 174.

[FOOTNOTERubinstein1999177-151] Rubinstein 1999, p. 177.

[FOOTNOTEYe20191-152] Ye 2019, p. 1.

[FOOTNOTEYe2019174–175,_166-153] Ye 2019, pp. 174–175, 166.

[FOOTNOTECampbell1915-154] Campbell (1915).

[FOOTNOTEMackay1896-155] Mackay (1896).

[FOOTNOTEPickering1898220–24-156] Pickering (1898), pp. 220–24.

[FOOTNOTETeng2004230–36-157] Teng (2004), pp. 230–36.

[FOOTNOTEHsu199129–36-158] Hsu (1991), pp. 29–36.

[FOOTNOTEMontgomery-McGovern1922-159] Montgomery-McGovern (1922).

[160] Yeh 2003

[FOOTNOTEGold198636-161] Gold (1986), p. 36.

[FOOTNOTEKleeman200319-162] Kleeman (2003), p. 19.

[FOOTNOTEKleeman200320–1-163] Kleeman (2003), pp. 20–1.

[Morris2015-164] Andrew D. Morris (2015). Japanese Taiwan: Colonial Rule and its Contested Legacy. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4725-7674-3.

[FOOTNOTETakekoshi1907210–19-165] Takekoshi (1907), pp. 210–19.

[Tierney2010-166] Robert Thomas Tierney (2010). Tropics of Savagery: The Culture of Japanese Empire in Comparative Frame. University of California Press. pp. 39–41. ISBN 978-0-520-94766-5.

[GoFoster2003-167] Julian Go; Anne L. Foster (2003). The American Colonial State in the Philippines: Global Perspectives. Duke University Press. p. 249. ISBN 0-8223-8451-5.

[AndréPeng2012-168] James St. André; Hsiao-yen Peng (January 2012). China and Its Others: Knowledge Transfer through Translation, 1829–2010. Rodopi. p. 142. ISBN 978-94-012-0719-5.

[Caprio2014-169] Mark Caprio (2014). Japanese Assimilation Policies in Colonial Korea, 1910–1945. University of Washington Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-0-295-99040-8.

[Rubinstein2015-170] Murray A. Rubinstein (2015). Taiwan: A New History. Routledge. pp. 211–212. ISBN 978-1-317-45908-8.

[171] Current Politics and Economics of Asia. Nova Science Publishers. 1998. p. 277.

[guan2001-172] Shun yi Taiwan yuan zhu min bo wu guan (2001). In search of the hunters and their tribes: studies in the history and culture of the Taiwan indigenous people. Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines. p. 27. ISBN 978-957-30287-0-3.

[173] Hsiao, Alison (15 June 2016). "Legislator May Chin calls for return of Atayal land". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.

[174] 伊凡諾幹 (1997). "TCI0002344126".&searchmode=basic&tcihsspage=tcisearch_opt2_search 樟腦戰爭與'tayal (msbtunux) / (bng'ciq)初探--殖民主義、近代化與民族的動態一. Vol. 5. 臺北縣. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13.

[175] 伊凡諾幹 (2000). 殖産興業、集団移住与文化生成：以 Tayal[bng'ciq]与Tayal[msbtunux]土地所有的変化為例. 中央研究院民族学研究所. p. 6. Archived from the original on 2016-12-24.

[176] Crook 2014, p. 16.

[177] . Cox 1930, p. 94.

[auto-178] The Japan Year Book 1937, p. 1004.

[179] . Inahara 1937, p. 1004.

[180] . Lin 1995, p. 84.

[181] The Japan Year Book 1933, p. 1139.

[182] Japan's progress number ... July, 1935, p. 19.

[FOOTNOTESuenari20061–8-183] Suenari (2006), pp. 1–8.

[FOOTNOTEMatsuda2003181-184] Matsuda (2003), p. 181.

[FOOTNOTEKa199527–30-185] Ka (1995), pp. 27–30.

[FOOTNOTESuenari20066–8-186] Suenari (2006), pp. 6–8.

[FOOTNOTEBlundell200015–16-187] Blundell (2000), pp. 15–16.

[FOOTNOTESimon2006-188] Simon (2006).

[FOOTNOTEChing2001153–73-189] Ching (2001), pp. 153–73.

[FOOTNOTEMendel197054–5-190] Mendel (1970), pp. 54–5.

[191] Chou 2008, p. 124.

[FOOTNOTEWilson1970-192] Wilson (1970).

[FOOTNOTEPhillips200347–8,_140–41-193] Phillips (2003), pp. 47–8, 140–41.

[FOOTNOTEGao2001-194] Gao (2001).

[FOOTNOTEHarrison200168–70-195] Harrison (2001), pp. 68–70.

[FOOTNOTEHarrison2003351-196] Harrison (2003), p. 351.

[FOOTNOTEHsiau1997302-197] Hsiau (1997), p. 302.

[FOOTNOTEShih1999-198] Shih (1999).

[FOOTNOTEStainton2006400–10-199] Stainton (2006), pp. 400–10.

[FOOTNOTEHsiau2000170-200] Hsiau (2000), p. 170.

[FOOTNOTEBrown200423–9-201] Brown (2004), pp. 23–9.

[FOOTNOTEHsiau2000171–73-202] Hsiau (2000), pp. 171–73.

[FOOTNOTEEdmondson200232–42-203] Edmondson (2002), pp. 32–42.

[FOOTNOTESu1986-204] Su (1986).

[FOOTNOTEHsiau2000171-205] Hsiau (2000), p. 171.

[FOOTNOTEStainton2006401–10-206] Stainton (2006), pp. 401–10.

[FOOTNOTEGao2007-207] Gao (2007).

[FOOTNOTEEyton2004-208] Eyton (2004).

[FOOTNOTEGluck2005-209] Gluck (2005).

[FOOTNOTELiu2006-210] Liu (2006).

[FOOTNOTEFaure200198–100-211] Faure (2001), pp. 98–100.

[FOOTNOTEStainton1999-212] Stainton (1999).

[FOOTNOTEHsieh200647–9-213] Hsieh (2006), pp. 47–9.

[FOOTNOTEStainton199939-214] Stainton (1999), p. 39.

[FOOTNOTEStainton199938–9-215] Stainton (1999), pp. 38–9.

[FOOTNOTERudolph2003123-216] Rudolph (2003), p. 123.

[FOOTNOTELiu2006427–29-217] Liu (2006), pp. 427–29.

[218] "Legislative Yuan" 2004

[219] Damm, Jens (2012). "Multiculturalism in Taiwan and the Influence of Europe". In Damm, Jens; Lim, Paul (eds.). European perspectives on Taiwan. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. p. 95. ISBN 978-3-531-94303-9.

[220] Simon 2011, p. 28.

[221] . Vinding 2004, p. 220.

[222] "國民黨紀念光復稱莫那魯道抗日英雄 – 台灣立報". Lihpao.com. 2005-10-26. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

[223] "Lawmaker and aborigines forbidden to visit Yasukuni". China Post. 15 June 2005. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

[224] "Taiwan aboriginal lawmaker to take struggle against Japan to UN". sina English. Associated Press. 2005-09-14. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

[225] James (12 August 2011). "Taiwanese Politician Faces Charges Over Yasukuni Protest". Japan Probe. Archived from the original on 25 March 2014. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

[226] Chang, Mao-sen (12 August 2011). "Tokyo police charge lawmaker May Chin with assault". Japan Probe. Staff Reporter in TOKYO. p. 1. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

[227] "EDITORIAL: 'ethnic card,' Aboriginal-style". Taipei Times. 25 February 2008. p. 8. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.

[228] "Protesters accuse Dalai Lama of staging 'political show' in Taiwan". asiaone news. Agence France-Presse. Aug 31, 2009. Archived from the original on 2016-12-28. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

[229] Wang, Amber (31 August 2009). "Dalai Lama visits Taiwan typhoon victims". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 28 December 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

[230] "Dalai Lama visits Taiwan typhoon victims amid Chinese anger". Terra Daily. Kaohsiung, Taiwan (AFP). Aug 31, 2009. Archived from the original on 2016-12-28. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

[231] "Dalai Lama Visits Taiwan". The Wall Street Journal. 2 September 2009. Archived from the original on 19 March 2017.

[232] Gerber, Abraham (2 August 2016). "Apology failed to explicitly acknowledge Aboriginal sovereignty: demonstrators". Taipei Times. p. 1. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.

[233] Yang, Chun-huei (1 August 2016). "KMT Aborigine lawmakers to skip apology". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 4 September 2016.

[234] Gerber, Abraham (8 May 2016). "Rights groups call on Tsai to return Aboriginal lands". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.

[235] Hua, Meng-ching; Pan, Jason (15 June 2014). "Pazeh writers get awards for preserving language". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 11 November 2014.

[236] "DPP lawmaker sorry for ethnic slur". Taipei Times. 19 November 2016. p. 3. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.

[237] Hsiao, Alison (17 November 2016). "KMT slams DPP over Japan imports". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.

[loophole-238] "China loophole: Why Taiwan relies on Indigenous diplomacy". Christian Science Monitor.

[239] "狩獵權釋憲失敗原民立委：社會對「自然資源利用」與「生態保育」仍有誤解／沃草". watchout.tw.

[240] 鄭敏 (24 May 2021). "被宣告「部分違憲」的王光祿案，法律仍未真正看到原住民狩獵文化". 鳴人堂 (in Chinese). 天下.

[241] "President pardons Bunun hunter".

[242] Hsiao, Alison (1 December 2016). "Tsai failing nation's Aborigines: KMT". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 24 December 2016.

[FOOTNOTELin2007-243] Lin 2007.

[FOOTNOTELiu2012332-333-244] Liu 2012, p. 332-333.

[ChenDuan2008-245] Chen, Shu-juo; Duan, Hong-kuan (2008). "Plains Indigenous Ancestors and Taiwan Blood Nationalism". Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies. 72.

[FOOTNOTELiu2012341-246] Liu 2012, p. 341.

[Siraya-247] Waksman, Itamar (14 January 2022). "The Siraya's Fight for Recognition in Taiwan". The News Lens International Edition. Retrieved 2023-04-19.

[248] Lo, Yun-Hua; Cheng, Hsueh-Chien; Hsiung, Chia-Ni; Yang, Show-Ling; Wang, Han-Yu; Peng, Chia-Wei; Chen, Chun-Yu; Lin, Kung-Ping; Kang, Mei-Ling; Chen, Chien-Hsiun; Chu, Hou-Wei (2021-10-01). "Detecting Genetic Ancestry and Adaptation in the Taiwanese Han People". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 38 (10): 4149–4165. doi:10.1093/molbev/msaa276. ISSN 0737-4038. PMC 8476137. PMID 33170928.

[FOOTNOTEChou20058–13-249] Chou (2005), pp. 8–13.

[FOOTNOTEMeyer200127-250] Meyer (2001), p. 27.

[251] DGBAS 2000; CIP 2004

[FOOTNOTEChu2001167–69-252] Chu (2001), pp. 167–69.

[FOOTNOTEStainton2006393–98-253] Stainton (2006), pp. 393–98.

[FOOTNOTEMontgomery-McGovern1922145–46-254] Montgomery-McGovern (1922), pp. 145–46.

[FOOTNOTEBlusse200671–82-255] Blusse (2006), pp. 71–82.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd19861–81-256] Shepherd (1986), pp. 1–81.

[FOOTNOTEShepherd1993382-257] Shepherd (1993), p. 382.

[FOOTNOTEStainton2006420–22-258] Stainton (2006), pp. 420–22.

[FOOTNOTEChenHay20041124-259] Chen & Hay (2004), p. 1124.

[FOOTNOTECohen1988355–57-260] Cohen (1988), pp. 355–57.

[261] "Premier apologizes" 2002

[262] "Tao demand" 2003

[FOOTNOTELoa2010-263] Loa (2010).

[Kachniewska,_Magdalena_2016-264] Kachniewska, Magdalena (2016), Indigenous tourism clusters development in Taiwan: economic and cultural foundations of sustainability (in print)

[FOOTNOTELin2006-265] Lin (2006).

[FOOTNOTEMo2005-266] Mo (2005).

[267] Ho Hi Yan 2005

[268] Listen to Ho-hi-yan Archived 2013-08-19 at the Wayback Machine; requires Windows Media Player 9 or higher.

[FOOTNOTELiu2000-269] Liu (2000).

[270] "Taiwan designates Aug. 1 as Indigenous Peoples' Day". Focus Taiwan CNA. Retrieved 1 August 2020.

[baker2016-271] Baker, Diane (10 November 2016). "Pulima Art Festival opts for south". Taipei Times. Retrieved 28 March 2021.

[272] "MICAWOR – 2018 PULIMA Art Festival". Medianet. 18 December 2018. Retrieved 28 March 2021.

[273] "2020 Festival". PulimaENG (in Latin). Retrieved 28 March 2021.

[274] 2020 Pulima Art Festival on YouTube

[Ky-Hong-Bang-thi-1] Ngô Sĩ Liên. "Ky Hong Bang thi". Đại Việt Sử ký Toàn thư. p. 2. Archived from the original on 2012-09-28. Retrieved 2012-11-02.

[Shennong-2] Vu, Hong Lien (2016). Rice and Baguette: A History of Food in Vietnam. ISBN 9781780237046.

[3] Marie-Carine Lall, Edward Vickers Education As a Political Tool in Asia 2009 -Page 143 "Children learn about the legends of the nation's birth, which feature heroic figures such as Kinh Dương Vương, Âu Cơ ... Sơn Tinh – Thủy Tinh, Thánh Gióng.22 The distinction between what is legend and what is scientific history is unclear."

===================

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[note 1]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[note 2]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

Thursday, June 8, 2023

Đài Loan và Cội Nguồn Bách Việt / Taiwan and its Baiyue roots

Taiwanese indigenous peoples

Terminology

Recognized peoples[edit]

Indigenous ethnic groups recognized by Taiwan[edit]

Indigenous Taiwanese in mainland China[edit]

Assimilation and acculturation[edit]

Current forms of assimilation[edit]

Surnames and identity[edit]

History of the aboriginal peoples[edit]

Plains aboriginals[edit]

European period (1623–1662)[edit]

Under Dutch rule[edit]

Qing dynasty rule (1683–1895)[edit]

Quarantine policies[edit]

Qing classification of indigenous peoples[edit]

Settler expansion[edit]

Migration to highlands[edit]

Colonization in reaction to crises[edit]

Highland peoples[edit]

Headhunting[edit]

Japanese rule (1895–1945)[edit]

Kuomintang single-party rule (1945–1987)[edit]

Transition to democracy[edit]

Aborigines in the democratic era[edit]

Aboriginal political movement[edit]

Aboriginal political representation[edit]

Right to hunt[edit]

Claimed admixture with Taiwanese Han[edit]

Economic issues[edit]

Religion[edit]

Ecological issues[edit]

Parks, tourism, and commercialization[edit]

Music[edit]

Indigenous Peoples' Day[edit]

Pulima Art Festival[edit]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

Citations[edit]

Sources[edit]

Legends[edit]

Worship[edit]

Other theories[edit]

References[edit]

No comments:

Post a Comment