By Jim Cheng
One must also bear in mind that part of confusions persists is due to Taiwanese ignorance that allows falsified and twisted Chinese fairy tales to prevail among the public. A recent expedition led by a deputy director of the Academia Sinica made an interesting discovery of archaic stone tools proven to be 20,000-year old by the radioactive dating. It was a fanfare as the major discovery in archaic history of Taiwan. However, the find came from the same site, Pasheng Caves, that the late professor Lin Chao-chi (林朝棨) made archaic stone tool discoveries, which were radio-dated nearly 40,000 to 35,000 years ago (林朝棨, 1965, see also by Dr. Chou Stella Wan-yaw, 1997). The discovery was witnessed also by a professor at NTU who participated in the previous expedition led by Professor Lin to those earlier stone tools. I failed to understand why the professor did not come forth to recognize Professor Lin’s earlier report?
There are two important historical events linked to Professor Lin’s 1965 findings: The dating of over 35,000 old human stone tools imply that Formosa was first peopled near that ancient site that jibes with the time that the Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) reached most available lands in the old world (Eurasia) after they left the birth land Africa ~60,000 years ago into Eurasia. Second, the much cerebrated article in Nature (One of the most respected Science Magazine), “Taiwan’s Gift to the World, Feb 17, 2000” suspected southern Chinese “farmers” immigrated into Formosa and brought farmers and farming technologies and initial Austronesian languages to Taiwan some15,000 years ago. These are of pure conjectured speculation without a merit of evidence. Especially, The Formosan Encounter clearly inhabitants, aka Austronesian Formosan, did neither speak Chinese, nor did have a shred trace of alleged China farming skills when landed and stayed on island until 1662. Furthermore, the farming was introduced first by the Dutch into Formosa but had nothing whatsoever to do with China farmers.
This is based on the witnessed and written accounts recorded in the Netherlands since early 1600 AD when the VOC came to existence in 1602! Whether Taiwanese will still insist on believing Chinese stories to put Formosan History as a subset of China is completely up to Taiwanese. I wish to also warn Taiwanese that they should examine the alleged history on Taiwan in China records with modern science technology before believing the authenticity of such records. One should not judge as did by the recent expedition by the group I mentioned above. The new field of history called “History Anthropology” should be the principle in studying history, today.
(8/7/2009)
Friday, August 7, 2009
Formosan (Taiwan) History
By Jim Cheng
Ever since the “Ilha Formosa” legend became known, Taiwanese have started to ask how much more past Taiwan history has been concealed from the public by Chiang Kai-shek, his mafia and Chinese authorities. With a little search, one may not be hard to find that Taiwan is not a mere subset of China history. On the contrary, Taiwan was initially called Formosa following the “Ilha Formosa” legend and the subsequent placing, for the first time in the world history, on the world map under the name Formosa. Both legend and map happened in mid-1500s and in the hand of Portuguese (…..). Dutch declared the island Formosa as the Dutch colony in 1624 following the world history. It is the first time the island became a colony of a foreign country. Subsequently, the island was colonized by Chinese Koxinga who called her Tong-Do first and then Tong-Ling between 1662 and 1683, then by Manchuria Ch’in from 1683 to 1895, that renamed the island Taiwan sometimes after 1683, and finally Japan occupied Taiwan from 1895 to 1945 but it was prevalently known as Formosa in the world. Since 1945, the island becomes a protected territory under the U.S. Military Government (USMG) who temporarily asked the ROC government under Chiang Kai-shek in exile for overseeing Taiwan affairs. It was purely for protecting Taiwan against the Communist China under Mao Tze-don that chased corrupted Chiang out of China.
The earliest recent Formosan History began in 1623 when the Dutch first landed on the island that year, started detailed daily records on social and cultural activities of the inhabitants and the Dutch Government, and officially called her Formosa in 1624. One should go find that past history in “The Formosan Encounter” edited from VOC (1602-1798) including detail accounts on Formosa between 1623 and 1662. One may also find an official government documents on early Taiwan history by Japanese in the Main Library of National Taiwan University. Reading history written only in, and by, Chinese must be extra careful since, as commonly perceived, records by Chinese often give distort historical facts in order to flatter China and Chinese images.
I do not remember how many times I have posted what "Taiwan" should be called appropriately. In the Formosan History, none of those China chauvinistic names, Hoklo, Ho-lo, Hakka, Hak, 台語 and tons of other Chinese garbage are correct. They are merely for purposes to confuse Taiwanese. Then what should we be called? It is obvious from what I have mentioned above. We should be called “Austronesian (AN) Speaking Formosan or in short Formosan.”
I will tell you another glorious past Formosan contributed to the world. When the Dutch first colonized the island in 1623, they immediately noticed that inhabitants spoke only AN languages that were similar to what Indonesian natives in the place VOC Headquarters was located spoke. Subsequently researchers also discovered languages they use, all in AN Languages Family, are in fact originated from Formosa. The Hoklo etc are all foreign languages and brought to the island by southern Chinese Ro-han-ka and Koxinga pirates. Even in early colonial occupation of the island by China, they were spoken by a meager minority. The old Formosa inhabitants should remember there were a lot of aborigines scattered all over rural areas on the island. Articles reported in Jan. 2009’s Science magazine further support the AN Formosa history and AN origin. The AN speaking Formosan or in short, Formosan for the islanders should be the correct call.
Our distinguished linguist, the late Dr. Ong Iok-tek explained that the word Taiwan was even detested by Koxinga gangs since it sounded like “bury all.” Ong not only stated that fact, but also defined the Hoklo differentiated from Minnan in 1961. It has firm support from Linguistics.
To Ms. Tada Kei: Concerning dialects, you may want to read the book “The Power of Barbel” written by John McWhorter, then still an Associate Professor in Linguistics at UC Berkeley. Dialect is an intermediate stage in the linguistic development and evolution. The process follows the same pattern of evolution and speciation in biology, or the Darwinian Evolution.
To Mr. Akiyo: For a better understanding on the true Hakka history, consult “Hakka, the Stranger within China” by Takagi Keizo (1992). Some Hakka like to be related to Hakka in China. Read the book, you will find Taiwan Hakka is embraced by Chinese Hakka. You may study what Marie Lin did on Taiwan’s genetic studies. She is an MD working at the McKay hospital in Taipei and reported many papers on HLA genetic since 2000. She often becomes a news personality on Taiwan. Her HLA data clearly indicate Hoklo and Hakka on Taiwan differ only in spoken languages, but genetically are identical and have the same AN Formosan ancestors. She has many reports in newspapers and written in Chinese.
Jim Cheng. 090807
Ever since the “Ilha Formosa” legend became known, Taiwanese have started to ask how much more past Taiwan history has been concealed from the public by Chiang Kai-shek, his mafia and Chinese authorities. With a little search, one may not be hard to find that Taiwan is not a mere subset of China history. On the contrary, Taiwan was initially called Formosa following the “Ilha Formosa” legend and the subsequent placing, for the first time in the world history, on the world map under the name Formosa. Both legend and map happened in mid-1500s and in the hand of Portuguese (…..). Dutch declared the island Formosa as the Dutch colony in 1624 following the world history. It is the first time the island became a colony of a foreign country. Subsequently, the island was colonized by Chinese Koxinga who called her Tong-Do first and then Tong-Ling between 1662 and 1683, then by Manchuria Ch’in from 1683 to 1895, that renamed the island Taiwan sometimes after 1683, and finally Japan occupied Taiwan from 1895 to 1945 but it was prevalently known as Formosa in the world. Since 1945, the island becomes a protected territory under the U.S. Military Government (USMG) who temporarily asked the ROC government under Chiang Kai-shek in exile for overseeing Taiwan affairs. It was purely for protecting Taiwan against the Communist China under Mao Tze-don that chased corrupted Chiang out of China.
The earliest recent Formosan History began in 1623 when the Dutch first landed on the island that year, started detailed daily records on social and cultural activities of the inhabitants and the Dutch Government, and officially called her Formosa in 1624. One should go find that past history in “The Formosan Encounter” edited from VOC (1602-1798) including detail accounts on Formosa between 1623 and 1662. One may also find an official government documents on early Taiwan history by Japanese in the Main Library of National Taiwan University. Reading history written only in, and by, Chinese must be extra careful since, as commonly perceived, records by Chinese often give distort historical facts in order to flatter China and Chinese images.
I do not remember how many times I have posted what "Taiwan" should be called appropriately. In the Formosan History, none of those China chauvinistic names, Hoklo, Ho-lo, Hakka, Hak, 台語 and tons of other Chinese garbage are correct. They are merely for purposes to confuse Taiwanese. Then what should we be called? It is obvious from what I have mentioned above. We should be called “Austronesian (AN) Speaking Formosan or in short Formosan.”
I will tell you another glorious past Formosan contributed to the world. When the Dutch first colonized the island in 1623, they immediately noticed that inhabitants spoke only AN languages that were similar to what Indonesian natives in the place VOC Headquarters was located spoke. Subsequently researchers also discovered languages they use, all in AN Languages Family, are in fact originated from Formosa. The Hoklo etc are all foreign languages and brought to the island by southern Chinese Ro-han-ka and Koxinga pirates. Even in early colonial occupation of the island by China, they were spoken by a meager minority. The old Formosa inhabitants should remember there were a lot of aborigines scattered all over rural areas on the island. Articles reported in Jan. 2009’s Science magazine further support the AN Formosa history and AN origin. The AN speaking Formosan or in short, Formosan for the islanders should be the correct call.
Our distinguished linguist, the late Dr. Ong Iok-tek explained that the word Taiwan was even detested by Koxinga gangs since it sounded like “bury all.” Ong not only stated that fact, but also defined the Hoklo differentiated from Minnan in 1961. It has firm support from Linguistics.
To Ms. Tada Kei: Concerning dialects, you may want to read the book “The Power of Barbel” written by John McWhorter, then still an Associate Professor in Linguistics at UC Berkeley. Dialect is an intermediate stage in the linguistic development and evolution. The process follows the same pattern of evolution and speciation in biology, or the Darwinian Evolution.
To Mr. Akiyo: For a better understanding on the true Hakka history, consult “Hakka, the Stranger within China” by Takagi Keizo (1992). Some Hakka like to be related to Hakka in China. Read the book, you will find Taiwan Hakka is embraced by Chinese Hakka. You may study what Marie Lin did on Taiwan’s genetic studies. She is an MD working at the McKay hospital in Taipei and reported many papers on HLA genetic since 2000. She often becomes a news personality on Taiwan. Her HLA data clearly indicate Hoklo and Hakka on Taiwan differ only in spoken languages, but genetically are identical and have the same AN Formosan ancestors. She has many reports in newspapers and written in Chinese.
Jim Cheng. 090807
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Taiwanese general origins in Pin-poh.
by Jim Cheng
“I’m glad to see several people have started to talk about “Taiwanese general origins in Pin-poh.” This is not an “I tell you so” story. Way back in pre-1990 times, our senior Richard Yeh San (The only son of the Tainan Mayor Yeh in 1950s or even in late 1940s) in California had reported articles based on archeology (personal communication) reaching that conclusion. I have a report in Taiwan Tribune (台灣人和印支半島族群的關係--鄭昭任 020702) talked about linguistics and racial relationships between Formosan and Tai-Ka-Dai speakers from Indochina Peninsula. The linguistic part is taken from Robert Blust (1999). Since then I have been repeatedly talking Formosan matter, damping the term Taiwan and Taiwanese and extended my belief that it is one of the most urgent tasks for “Taiwanese” to realize that they mostly didn’t come from Han Chinese.
In one of your recent postings, you asked ancestral Pin-poh names. It is hard at best to do that. In one VCR I watched recently, it was on Negritos that became extinct sometimes early 1900. It was taped probably around 1970-90. Our sis/bro in mountains said their names being so and so but now called an adopted and frequently used Han name. It happened in 1900s after Chankoro Chinese came to the island via USMG’s help in 1947. Aborigines’ descendants were mostly in cities and probably forgot all about their ancestral names. The Pin-poh’s gradually adopted Han names to get into newly predominated Han society in the island (for the sake of living as you all know why) beginning from Koxinga’s invasion of the island since 1662.
Now I focus on the statement by Prof 彭明敏’s father, Peh Cheng-kou (Hoklo). (Even in my early teen years I used to hear Senior Peh’s name since my father talked him very often.) I first learned his “noted” quotation—Shame to have some Chinese blood in my body—through Kuoa Ki-hwa’ book “Jail House Island Taiwan (1992)” that my sister gave me when I visited her on Formosa sometimes in 1990. Kuoa was still alive at that time and my brother-in-law knew Kuoa since high school days. I reported an article on Kuoa on 080204 in Taiwan Tribune and proudly quoted Senior 彭’s phrase. I suspect now even he might not have the “Chinese blood” at all but before 1950 most “Taiwanese” were fooled by Chinese believing their ancestral origin in Han. It is true that those long-enjoying the “famous and wealthy Taiwanese families” mostly have origins in Fukien since during Manchurian Ch’in time after 1683 probably had brought their wealth and official ranking connections in government. As to others with China origins, they should be numbered only in minority (as I have repeatedly been criticizing that the widely talked immigration en masse into Formosa is a hoax.) A recent posting even insisted over 90% of those claimed to have Han origin being Pin-pohs. So what we need in addition to the political revolution is the Cultural Revolution to elicit Formosan belief that they mostly are not Chinese Han and then fight against those racial Chinese pigs.
Last note: Naïve “Taiwanese” are brain-washed to think “Racial Discrimination” is a taboo to talk. It is true not to discriminate races in political sense. But Racial Differences are a biological and medical truth that we have to face. 馬英九 is purely political and together with other Chankoro Chinese to discriminate “Taiwanese” and you are witnessing that on your own eyes.”.
Jim Cheng. 090718
“I’m glad to see several people have started to talk about “Taiwanese general origins in Pin-poh.” This is not an “I tell you so” story. Way back in pre-1990 times, our senior Richard Yeh San (The only son of the Tainan Mayor Yeh in 1950s or even in late 1940s) in California had reported articles based on archeology (personal communication) reaching that conclusion. I have a report in Taiwan Tribune (台灣人和印支半島族群的關係--鄭昭任 020702) talked about linguistics and racial relationships between Formosan and Tai-Ka-Dai speakers from Indochina Peninsula. The linguistic part is taken from Robert Blust (1999). Since then I have been repeatedly talking Formosan matter, damping the term Taiwan and Taiwanese and extended my belief that it is one of the most urgent tasks for “Taiwanese” to realize that they mostly didn’t come from Han Chinese.
In one of your recent postings, you asked ancestral Pin-poh names. It is hard at best to do that. In one VCR I watched recently, it was on Negritos that became extinct sometimes early 1900. It was taped probably around 1970-90. Our sis/bro in mountains said their names being so and so but now called an adopted and frequently used Han name. It happened in 1900s after Chankoro Chinese came to the island via USMG’s help in 1947. Aborigines’ descendants were mostly in cities and probably forgot all about their ancestral names. The Pin-poh’s gradually adopted Han names to get into newly predominated Han society in the island (for the sake of living as you all know why) beginning from Koxinga’s invasion of the island since 1662.
Now I focus on the statement by Prof 彭明敏’s father, Peh Cheng-kou (Hoklo). (Even in my early teen years I used to hear Senior Peh’s name since my father talked him very often.) I first learned his “noted” quotation—Shame to have some Chinese blood in my body—through Kuoa Ki-hwa’ book “Jail House Island Taiwan (1992)” that my sister gave me when I visited her on Formosa sometimes in 1990. Kuoa was still alive at that time and my brother-in-law knew Kuoa since high school days. I reported an article on Kuoa on 080204 in Taiwan Tribune and proudly quoted Senior 彭’s phrase. I suspect now even he might not have the “Chinese blood” at all but before 1950 most “Taiwanese” were fooled by Chinese believing their ancestral origin in Han. It is true that those long-enjoying the “famous and wealthy Taiwanese families” mostly have origins in Fukien since during Manchurian Ch’in time after 1683 probably had brought their wealth and official ranking connections in government. As to others with China origins, they should be numbered only in minority (as I have repeatedly been criticizing that the widely talked immigration en masse into Formosa is a hoax.) A recent posting even insisted over 90% of those claimed to have Han origin being Pin-pohs. So what we need in addition to the political revolution is the Cultural Revolution to elicit Formosan belief that they mostly are not Chinese Han and then fight against those racial Chinese pigs.
Last note: Naïve “Taiwanese” are brain-washed to think “Racial Discrimination” is a taboo to talk. It is true not to discriminate races in political sense. But Racial Differences are a biological and medical truth that we have to face. 馬英九 is purely political and together with other Chankoro Chinese to discriminate “Taiwanese” and you are witnessing that on your own eyes.”.
Jim Cheng. 090718
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Ancient relationship between Formosa and Vietnam
Here is a brief on Vietnamese origin (AMH migrations into Vietnam in history.)
The 1st specifically Vietnamese culture (VC) emerged around 5,000 BC in the caves and grottoes near Hoa-Binh (North V). Hoabinhian man belonged to the Australoid group (Australoid language speakers) moving from Central Asia southeastward into Indonesia and Australia; he may have been as dark-skinned as the present-day Melanesians of New Caledonia & Solomon Islands. Around this time (slightly later?), the AMH in the same wave might have peopled Formosa. The stone tools excavated by Professor 林朝棨 probably were used by this first group may be ones that he dated at 4,000 BC to 3,500 BC old in 1960s with out-of-dated tools. With all respect, the dating should be done again with the advanced technology available today.
2. By 2,000BC, a second wave of Australoid, armed with double-edged-axes, entered the country on their way south.—they are called Bacsonian after the Bac-Son area north of Hanoi where their remains have been mostly found. (Note that such axes were not found on Formosa.) They slowly spread through SE Asia, from Malaya to the Philippines, and became the first “Vietnamese” to settle the country permanently. (This may explain why peoples on Formosa are similar to but genetically cannot be tied directly to the Filipinos.)
3. The third wave from Central Asia brought many of SE Asia’s present inhabitants, in the form of the first Malays, who settled Java, Malaya, and the coastal area of Vietnam from Saigon to what is now the imperial city of Hue, and brought with them cattle, some metals, rudimentary irrigation, and upright stones, or megaliths which have a striking resemblance to similar lithic (stone) monuments found in places as distant as Europe and Easter Island. In Vietnam they also left magnificent burial chambers at Sa-Huynh and near the rubber plantations of Xuan-Loc and Bien-Hoa, just NE of Saigon (Huge containers to store corpse and to let them rot inside. Later, after deboned, they were picked up for burial.) Therefore cultures differed basically between the two races. Megalithic artifacts were also claimed to have been found on Formosa but if they were products from same culture or not should be investigated.
These second and third waves most likely are the reason why Vietnamese differ in appearance from Malaysians and Javanese on the one hand and Chinese on the other. Remember the third wave migrated probably through northern part of Indochina around the present border line with the future China. Some of this group probably went further north to become coalesced peoples that we see in Chinese. Coalesced with whom? Likely, they migrated from central Asia northward to reach Baykal Lake in Siberia and moved southward to reach northern China, Mongolia and Yellow River basin (generally called Mongolians.) Also note they did not journey through southern side of Indochina as in the first wave did. All in all, the present day distribution of anthropological Asian races has thus formed.
You won’t see any one talking about the journey routes that I explained above. This is because most anthropologists (biogeographers, historians included) are busy deciphering more restricted groups so that different sets of info are delineated.
Earlier historians (most Japanese anthropologists, too) are largely influenced by the similarities between Formosan aborigines and Javanese (Polynesians in general) and speculated that Formosan had the origin in Polynesia in early days. Openheimer (as Ed was talking about), Martin, Hill originally in the Brian Sykes’s group are no exception in lauding that Polynesian theory. But I am not sure Sykes were entirely convinced about that. Here the Polynesian motif becomes critical in deciphering the whole picture.
As I have been kept saying that external morphology can get a good guess but that all it goes to the limit. Final solutions always come from confirmable scientific evidence. Of course we should always watch out ourselves from falling into the easy trap set by Chankoro Chinese. Taiwanese are easily fallen into the traps since they do not read English reports and literatures regularly. We have too many Sebo-like bragging most Taiwanese know everything (only fed to them by Chinese.) Are they any different from Chinese? They will take everything for granted!
Jim Cheng. 090607
------------------------------------
In the last posting, I talked about Vietnam because of its close geographic proximity. In ancient days, human dispersion depended entirely on geography, climate, and food supply. Due largely to the only means the AMH has on foot, together with inconvenience of going with a larger crowd (companions, families, close relatives, and perhaps friends,) the rate of migration on the land is often estimated at a slow pace of a kilometer/year. Crossing the width exceeding a jumping capability of a deeper water bodies played an almost absolute obstacle to reach from one shore to the other side. Perhaps, seeing floating woods after storms might have given them ideas to use floating woods. But to move even a group of people together still need human ingenuity and opportunity. Obviously, geography played a critical role in migration.
Today we are still mystified by the crossing of the strait from the Sunderland that land-bridged to Eurasia to the Sahulland, an archaic continent including both New Guinea and Australia. But the earliest traces of AMH in Munroe Lake, Australia dated 60,000 to 50,000 years old when no means of crossing the strait is ever found. In addition, ample evidence pointed to the fact that ancestors of the present Australian aborigines’ journey started from the common AMH origin in the mid-eastern Africa; and they marked the first bands of human adventures out of Africa to Eurasia, the historical initiation of the human adventure into the New World.
One may ask what is about China. Today, China enjoys the geographic proximity to Formosa. But in history before 600 AD, China most likely did not know where is the island that separates from Eurasian Continent across the Formosa Strait at the closest site of today’s Fukien that as yet to be conquered. All alleged suggestion of a possible immigration of “China farmers” before that time or as early as 15,000 years ago into the island is a mere speculation coped with wild guess.China
would use that as a political agenda in a desire to occupying the Island and forging many other stories to falsify a link between the two lands. I will describe them later in detail.
The closest geography to Formosa is the area that was larger than the present-day Fu-kien in China; it was occupied by Bei-Yueh, which ethnically belongs to the ancient Vietnamese but not to Chinese Han. The area, however, was isolated distantly from the rest of Vietnam to the south intercepted broadly along the coast south to the northern edge of the rest of the Vietnam territory, as known in China history since Ch’ing dynasty integrated into the entire area of today’s China territory. The Bei-Yueh remained in non-Han people until the Tang Dynasty finally took over in AD 618-907. Thus, any possible contact with Formosa before AD 600 must be by Vietnamese who were historically known as marine ventures. By contrast, Chinese entered the Island first by the hired hard laborers (Ro-han-ka) of the Dutch until Koxinga invaded and chased away Dutch in 1662. It colonized the island as the base for counterattack to recover the China Mainland from Manchurian Ch’in that recently conquered China Han. That part of history is known worldwide.
To what degree of Formosan integration into China even during the Koxinga period is still a big mystery. The often cited mass immigrations of Chinese into the island must be reexamined since reliable evidence is lacking except for coming out of Chinese stories. These stories often aided by exaggerating numbers that Chinese could easily fabricate. The so-called “immigration en masse” in “China records” probably was rewritten after they renamed the island “Taiwan” by the Manchuria Ch’in sometimes after 1683. In China records, the Taiwan name is filled with given in tens of alternatives. They even claimed some bogus names appeared before Soon Chung’s time of the “Disunion Period” around AD 230 in China history. Even when the recent Manchuria Ch’in replaced the Koxinga in 1683, it came with mass repatriation of nearly entire Chinese on Taiwan to prevent further turmoil caused by Koxinga royalist clans and Chinese Ming Dynasty followers. Thereafter, overall disregard of the island was well known that historians intentionally skipped and put that history into oblivion. The claim of China disowned the vast southern land of Formosa as foreign by the Ch’in even in 1871. The Botan (Mutan in Chinese) incident that year became public knowledge due to clear records in Japanese history who had direct involvement in the incident (detailed later).
All stories on Chinese en masse conjectures, however, lack any solid archaeological evidence and mostly based on a wishful imagination. It is as enigmatic as anyone could dream up. The Dutch VOC that documented all detailed witnessed accounts in detail since the Dutch troop first landed on Formosa in 1623 until 1662 is clearly described in “The Formosan Encounter” edited from the VOC with both original Dutch contrasted with the English translation and published since 1999. The whole accounts of Formosan society and culture when Chinese Koxinga Cheng Ch’eng-Kung chased out the Dutch from Formosa are described in detail. The original VOC document is also known to cover 1176 meter-long and safely kept all along in the National Archives, Hague, the Netherlands (Nationaal Archief, Den Haag). Clearly, throughout the entire island, aborigines were still living totally in the ancient hunter-gatherer society as witnessed when the Dutch landed on Formosa in 1623 and proven to be true when they conquered the entire land by early 1630s. The year 1623 also marked the beginning of the Formosan History with full witnessed and written documents. The island is formerly called Formosa and so recorded in the world.
Jim Cheng. 090707
The 1st specifically Vietnamese culture (VC) emerged around 5,000 BC in the caves and grottoes near Hoa-Binh (North V). Hoabinhian man belonged to the Australoid group (Australoid language speakers) moving from Central Asia southeastward into Indonesia and Australia; he may have been as dark-skinned as the present-day Melanesians of New Caledonia & Solomon Islands. Around this time (slightly later?), the AMH in the same wave might have peopled Formosa. The stone tools excavated by Professor 林朝棨 probably were used by this first group may be ones that he dated at 4,000 BC to 3,500 BC old in 1960s with out-of-dated tools. With all respect, the dating should be done again with the advanced technology available today.
2. By 2,000BC, a second wave of Australoid, armed with double-edged-axes, entered the country on their way south.—they are called Bacsonian after the Bac-Son area north of Hanoi where their remains have been mostly found. (Note that such axes were not found on Formosa.) They slowly spread through SE Asia, from Malaya to the Philippines, and became the first “Vietnamese” to settle the country permanently. (This may explain why peoples on Formosa are similar to but genetically cannot be tied directly to the Filipinos.)
3. The third wave from Central Asia brought many of SE Asia’s present inhabitants, in the form of the first Malays, who settled Java, Malaya, and the coastal area of Vietnam from Saigon to what is now the imperial city of Hue, and brought with them cattle, some metals, rudimentary irrigation, and upright stones, or megaliths which have a striking resemblance to similar lithic (stone) monuments found in places as distant as Europe and Easter Island. In Vietnam they also left magnificent burial chambers at Sa-Huynh and near the rubber plantations of Xuan-Loc and Bien-Hoa, just NE of Saigon (Huge containers to store corpse and to let them rot inside. Later, after deboned, they were picked up for burial.) Therefore cultures differed basically between the two races. Megalithic artifacts were also claimed to have been found on Formosa but if they were products from same culture or not should be investigated.
These second and third waves most likely are the reason why Vietnamese differ in appearance from Malaysians and Javanese on the one hand and Chinese on the other. Remember the third wave migrated probably through northern part of Indochina around the present border line with the future China. Some of this group probably went further north to become coalesced peoples that we see in Chinese. Coalesced with whom? Likely, they migrated from central Asia northward to reach Baykal Lake in Siberia and moved southward to reach northern China, Mongolia and Yellow River basin (generally called Mongolians.) Also note they did not journey through southern side of Indochina as in the first wave did. All in all, the present day distribution of anthropological Asian races has thus formed.
You won’t see any one talking about the journey routes that I explained above. This is because most anthropologists (biogeographers, historians included) are busy deciphering more restricted groups so that different sets of info are delineated.
Earlier historians (most Japanese anthropologists, too) are largely influenced by the similarities between Formosan aborigines and Javanese (Polynesians in general) and speculated that Formosan had the origin in Polynesia in early days. Openheimer (as Ed was talking about), Martin, Hill originally in the Brian Sykes’s group are no exception in lauding that Polynesian theory. But I am not sure Sykes were entirely convinced about that. Here the Polynesian motif becomes critical in deciphering the whole picture.
As I have been kept saying that external morphology can get a good guess but that all it goes to the limit. Final solutions always come from confirmable scientific evidence. Of course we should always watch out ourselves from falling into the easy trap set by Chankoro Chinese. Taiwanese are easily fallen into the traps since they do not read English reports and literatures regularly. We have too many Sebo-like bragging most Taiwanese know everything (only fed to them by Chinese.) Are they any different from Chinese? They will take everything for granted!
Jim Cheng. 090607
------------------------------------
In the last posting, I talked about Vietnam because of its close geographic proximity. In ancient days, human dispersion depended entirely on geography, climate, and food supply. Due largely to the only means the AMH has on foot, together with inconvenience of going with a larger crowd (companions, families, close relatives, and perhaps friends,) the rate of migration on the land is often estimated at a slow pace of a kilometer/year. Crossing the width exceeding a jumping capability of a deeper water bodies played an almost absolute obstacle to reach from one shore to the other side. Perhaps, seeing floating woods after storms might have given them ideas to use floating woods. But to move even a group of people together still need human ingenuity and opportunity. Obviously, geography played a critical role in migration.
Today we are still mystified by the crossing of the strait from the Sunderland that land-bridged to Eurasia to the Sahulland, an archaic continent including both New Guinea and Australia. But the earliest traces of AMH in Munroe Lake, Australia dated 60,000 to 50,000 years old when no means of crossing the strait is ever found. In addition, ample evidence pointed to the fact that ancestors of the present Australian aborigines’ journey started from the common AMH origin in the mid-eastern Africa; and they marked the first bands of human adventures out of Africa to Eurasia, the historical initiation of the human adventure into the New World.
One may ask what is about China. Today, China enjoys the geographic proximity to Formosa. But in history before 600 AD, China most likely did not know where is the island that separates from Eurasian Continent across the Formosa Strait at the closest site of today’s Fukien that as yet to be conquered. All alleged suggestion of a possible immigration of “China farmers” before that time or as early as 15,000 years ago into the island is a mere speculation coped with wild guess.China
would use that as a political agenda in a desire to occupying the Island and forging many other stories to falsify a link between the two lands. I will describe them later in detail.
The closest geography to Formosa is the area that was larger than the present-day Fu-kien in China; it was occupied by Bei-Yueh, which ethnically belongs to the ancient Vietnamese but not to Chinese Han. The area, however, was isolated distantly from the rest of Vietnam to the south intercepted broadly along the coast south to the northern edge of the rest of the Vietnam territory, as known in China history since Ch’ing dynasty integrated into the entire area of today’s China territory. The Bei-Yueh remained in non-Han people until the Tang Dynasty finally took over in AD 618-907. Thus, any possible contact with Formosa before AD 600 must be by Vietnamese who were historically known as marine ventures. By contrast, Chinese entered the Island first by the hired hard laborers (Ro-han-ka) of the Dutch until Koxinga invaded and chased away Dutch in 1662. It colonized the island as the base for counterattack to recover the China Mainland from Manchurian Ch’in that recently conquered China Han. That part of history is known worldwide.
To what degree of Formosan integration into China even during the Koxinga period is still a big mystery. The often cited mass immigrations of Chinese into the island must be reexamined since reliable evidence is lacking except for coming out of Chinese stories. These stories often aided by exaggerating numbers that Chinese could easily fabricate. The so-called “immigration en masse” in “China records” probably was rewritten after they renamed the island “Taiwan” by the Manchuria Ch’in sometimes after 1683. In China records, the Taiwan name is filled with given in tens of alternatives. They even claimed some bogus names appeared before Soon Chung’s time of the “Disunion Period” around AD 230 in China history. Even when the recent Manchuria Ch’in replaced the Koxinga in 1683, it came with mass repatriation of nearly entire Chinese on Taiwan to prevent further turmoil caused by Koxinga royalist clans and Chinese Ming Dynasty followers. Thereafter, overall disregard of the island was well known that historians intentionally skipped and put that history into oblivion. The claim of China disowned the vast southern land of Formosa as foreign by the Ch’in even in 1871. The Botan (Mutan in Chinese) incident that year became public knowledge due to clear records in Japanese history who had direct involvement in the incident (detailed later).
All stories on Chinese en masse conjectures, however, lack any solid archaeological evidence and mostly based on a wishful imagination. It is as enigmatic as anyone could dream up. The Dutch VOC that documented all detailed witnessed accounts in detail since the Dutch troop first landed on Formosa in 1623 until 1662 is clearly described in “The Formosan Encounter” edited from the VOC with both original Dutch contrasted with the English translation and published since 1999. The whole accounts of Formosan society and culture when Chinese Koxinga Cheng Ch’eng-Kung chased out the Dutch from Formosa are described in detail. The original VOC document is also known to cover 1176 meter-long and safely kept all along in the National Archives, Hague, the Netherlands (Nationaal Archief, Den Haag). Clearly, throughout the entire island, aborigines were still living totally in the ancient hunter-gatherer society as witnessed when the Dutch landed on Formosa in 1623 and proven to be true when they conquered the entire land by early 1630s. The year 1623 also marked the beginning of the Formosan History with full witnessed and written documents. The island is formerly called Formosa and so recorded in the world.
Jim Cheng. 090707
Friday, July 10, 2009
台灣人就是平埔族, 台灣人不是中國人
"Pingpu Taiwanese Identification Campaign" (台灣平埔族正名運動).
「台灣人就是平埔族! 台灣人不是中國人!」
"Ethnically, Taiwanese are NOT Chinese!"
"Taiwanese are Pingpu!"
The indigenous inhabitants in Taiwan, the tribes living in the high mountains and the Pingpu tribes living on the plains, all are the descendants of the "Southern Islanders"; their living in Taiwan can be traced back to 50,000 years ago. For hundreds of years, at different times, many "young men" from China came to Taiwan to pursue a new life and a new hope; they settled down in Taiwan and married Pingpu women and their children grew up in Taiwan; .... Today the blood analysis reveals that after staying in Taiwan for three or four generations , the characteristics of the blood (the DNA) of the descendants of those early immigrants from China, are 80% or greater, the same as those of Pingpu. In a word, the so-called "Holo" or "Haka" inhabitans nowadays in Taiwan, they are actually "Pingpu" people instead of "Chinese people". They are NOT Chinese; they are "Pingpu Taiwanese"!
The KMT has used the Great-China- Chauvinism to brainwash Taiwanese to believe that "Ethnically, Taiwanese are Chinese."
Today, when Taiwan is being sold out to China by that Mr. Ma, when Taiwan is under the threat of the imminent annexation by China, Taiwanese should speak out loudly:
"Ethnically, Taiwanese are NOT Chinese!"
"Taiwanese are Pingpu!"
Last night, when I tried to sign up my endorsement for the "Pingpu Taiwanese Identification Campaign", on the top of the endorsement list, I saw three familiar names of our FAPA members, Mark Cheng, Yang-ching Liu and Wu Ming-chi, my heart was touched and I wrote down a message as follows:
**********
台灣的原住民, 包括住在山上的高山族和住在平地的平埔族, 都是南島語糸的子民, 在台灣己經居住了大約五萬年! 早年從唐山來的羅漢腳, 在台灣結婚生子, 三四代以後, 他們的子孫身上都流著百分之八十以上的平埔族血液; 因此世居在台灣的所謂「福佬人」, 「客家人」, 實際上正確地說, 都是「台灣平埔族」!
國民黨一向用「大中國沙文主義」給台灣人洗腦, 總是說:「從血緣上說, 台灣人是中國人.」 (KMT -- Ethnically, Taiwanese are Chinese. -- KMT).
今天台灣己經到了反賣台, 反併吞的危急時刻; 台灣人應該大聲的說出: 「台灣人不是中國人, 台灣人是平埔族!」 (Ethnically, Taiwanese are NOT Chinese; Taiwanese are Pingpu!).
讓「台灣認同」從「平埔族正名」運動開始推起!
力抗強權台灣人, 倒馬救台反併吞!
平埔正名, 台灣加油!
B.H. 6/23/2009
************
找回自己的祖先, 尊敬自己的祖先!!
台灣人就是平埔族,
100個台灣人有97個不是中國人!!
台灣人支持平埔原住民族爭取族群正名與身分認定之連署!
----------------
B.H. 7/8/2009
「台灣人就是平埔族! 台灣人不是中國人!」
"Ethnically, Taiwanese are NOT Chinese!"
"Taiwanese are Pingpu!"
The indigenous inhabitants in Taiwan, the tribes living in the high mountains and the Pingpu tribes living on the plains, all are the descendants of the "Southern Islanders"; their living in Taiwan can be traced back to 50,000 years ago. For hundreds of years, at different times, many "young men" from China came to Taiwan to pursue a new life and a new hope; they settled down in Taiwan and married Pingpu women and their children grew up in Taiwan; .... Today the blood analysis reveals that after staying in Taiwan for three or four generations , the characteristics of the blood (the DNA) of the descendants of those early immigrants from China, are 80% or greater, the same as those of Pingpu. In a word, the so-called "Holo" or "Haka" inhabitans nowadays in Taiwan, they are actually "Pingpu" people instead of "Chinese people". They are NOT Chinese; they are "Pingpu Taiwanese"!
The KMT has used the Great-China- Chauvinism to brainwash Taiwanese to believe that "Ethnically, Taiwanese are Chinese."
Today, when Taiwan is being sold out to China by that Mr. Ma, when Taiwan is under the threat of the imminent annexation by China, Taiwanese should speak out loudly:
"Ethnically, Taiwanese are NOT Chinese!"
"Taiwanese are Pingpu!"
Last night, when I tried to sign up my endorsement for the "Pingpu Taiwanese Identification Campaign", on the top of the endorsement list, I saw three familiar names of our FAPA members, Mark Cheng, Yang-ching Liu and Wu Ming-chi, my heart was touched and I wrote down a message as follows:
**********
台灣的原住民, 包括住在山上的高山族和住在平地的平埔族, 都是南島語糸的子民, 在台灣己經居住了大約五萬年! 早年從唐山來的羅漢腳, 在台灣結婚生子, 三四代以後, 他們的子孫身上都流著百分之八十以上的平埔族血液; 因此世居在台灣的所謂「福佬人」, 「客家人」, 實際上正確地說, 都是「台灣平埔族」!
國民黨一向用「大中國沙文主義」給台灣人洗腦, 總是說:「從血緣上說, 台灣人是中國人.」 (KMT -- Ethnically, Taiwanese are Chinese. -- KMT).
今天台灣己經到了反賣台, 反併吞的危急時刻; 台灣人應該大聲的說出: 「台灣人不是中國人, 台灣人是平埔族!」 (Ethnically, Taiwanese are NOT Chinese; Taiwanese are Pingpu!).
讓「台灣認同」從「平埔族正名」運動開始推起!
力抗強權台灣人, 倒馬救台反併吞!
平埔正名, 台灣加油!
B.H. 6/23/2009
************
找回自己的祖先, 尊敬自己的祖先!!
台灣人就是平埔族,
100個台灣人有97個不是中國人!!
台灣人支持平埔原住民族爭取族群正名與身分認定之連署!
----------------
B.H. 7/8/2009
聖地牙哥到三紹角來回: 漫談歐人統治下台灣地名
By 陳清池 7/10/09
去年(2008)三月台灣總統選舉, 我從聖地亞哥搭機回台投票。選舉結果使支持民進党的人大失所望。 選後第二天, 住台北大直的弟弟要開車帶我去散散心，我指定先到台灣東北角的三紹角參觀, 再去基隆和平島, 最後到淡水。 筆者對於以上三觀光點, 尤其是三紹角有特別興趣, 是有原因的。
退休後搬到聖地亞哥己經七年多。當年移居南加州，一方面因太太在聖地亞哥有親戚, 另方面也因為此地天侯及風景非常吸引人。住聖地亞哥不久, 又很快親驗到南加州多族群共存及多元性文化之可愛。 我們的住址從街名, 鎮名至州名都是源自西班牙語。美國人口最多的California, 州名的確來自西語。 直至1846年, California 仍是墨西哥領土的一部分, 而墨西哥本身從1540至1810是隸屬於西班牙。南加州地名源自西語比英語及原民語言為多, 就不足為奇了。[有關加州地名, 可參考Erwin G. Gudde, California Place Names, The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names (1960 Edition).]
1543 年萄匋牙人Juan Rodriquez Cabrillo 帶頭的西班牙船隊在聖地亞哥Point Loma 上岸, 其附近的海灣後耒稱Bay of San Diego, 而 岸上的城鎮則為 San Diego (聖地亞哥)。為了紀念歐人初次在加州最南端登陸, 美國聯邦政府在Point Loma設立隸屬國立公園系統的Cabrillo National Monument(紀念碑)。 据所知, 世界上僅西班牙有另一San Diego , 但是卻有不少Santiago, 幾乎西班牙航海家及征服者所到之處, 都有Santiago, 當然最有名應屬智利及古巴的Santiago。搬來聖地亞哥之後, 頭次參觀Cabrillo Monument, 很快連想到台灣東北角的三紹角不也是Santiago嗎？每有親友耒聖地亞哥, 我總是要帶他們去參觀Cabrillo Monument,並且告訴他們三紹角就是台灣的Santiago.
1626年西班牙船員在台灣東北角上陸, 此登陸點西人稱之為Santiago。 早期自閩南移民台灣的漢人以其音如「三紹角」, 因以「三紹角」稱呼之。去年三月首次訪三紹角時，我想像中直覺西人從海面方向所見三紹角應該很像San Diego的Point Loma，而且現今兩地山上都有燈塔及博物館, 甚至於山前或山腰都有墳地, Point Loma 有的是美國海軍的國家墳場 (National Cemetery), 但不同的是三紹角附近地段一直沒有發展, 至今還是個小村落， 而San Diego 則不但成為加州僅次於Los Angeles的第二大都市, 而且Bay of San Diego也成為美國主要海軍基地之一 。
當年，西人船隊於三紹角短停後, 接著佔領今基隆港灣內的社寮島(今和平島, 西人稱之為Santissima Trinidad)及滬尾(今淡水，稱之Castillo), 其勢力也及於東北部Cavalan(蛤仔難/噶瑪蘭社) 分佈之今宜蘭地區, 北台灣隨之成為西班牙殖民地, 不過西人佔領北台灣前後不過十六年(1626-1642)。
2008年三月從台灣回到聖地亞哥後, 我開始注意有關歐人統治台灣的歷史, 結果發現這方面最權威可靠的書應屬美國Emory University 史學教授Tonio Andrade 所著How Taiwan Became Chinese: Dutch, Spanish, and Han Colonization in the Seventeenth Century (2008)。 Andrade 的研究主要是利用十七世紀荷蘭人及西班牙人的原始資料, 尤其是荷蘭東印度公司(Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie 簡稱VOC)的文獻。我寫這篇短文, 另外也參考 中研院台史所研究員翁佳音所著 大台北古地圖考釋(1998), 作者解讀荷人於1654年所繪著的台北, 基隆地區古地圖。主要利用這兩本書, 我試圖介紹十七世紀台灣地名, 並以地名之變遷說明外族統治下台灣人之無奈。
西班牙人稱 台灣島為”Isla Hermosa”, 葡 萄牙語與西班牙語同屬Romance 語糸、因此文法及字句很接近, 西語的”Isla Hermosa” 就是葡語的”Ilha Formosa”。 1542年葡船航行穿過台灣海峽時, 船員見翠綠的樹林遍布島上高山與山丘, 而驚喜呼叫：”Ilha Formosa (美麗之島)！” 直至二戰結朿, 歐洲人及美洲人仍以”Formosa”稱台灣。
至於「台灣」又是怎麼來的？荷人於1624年登陸於Tayouan (今安平), 就地在Tayouan 建Fort Zeelandia (熱蘭遮城), 為荷人統治台灣(1624-1662)的政治及軍事中心。但以荷人，漢人及日人多聚居Tayouan 附近平原, Tayouan 因此逐漸被用以指稱全島，而漢移民則以大員/台員/大灣/台灣音譯Tayouan。 十七世紀漢移民幾無例外, 都是耒自福建閩南講閩南語（今台灣人通稱福老台語）的漢人，[客家人則於十八世紀才開始移民台灣。] 前舉四漢名詞的閩南語發音都是Tayouan. 而Tayouan 確實是當時台南地區Siraya (希拉亞)族所取地名, 由此可見Tayouan/Taiwan/台灣源自原住民而非漢人。
十七世西班牙人有稱台灣原任民為「Indio (印第安人)」之例, 而漢人則幾無例外稱呼原民為「番」。當時所有歐人統治下台灣地名幾乎可說都是原民所取， [翁佳音認為Tamsui(淡水) 為漢人所取地名，果如是它應該是十七世紀極少數例外之一。] 但因台灣原民本無文字, [Andrade 說他們是沒有歷史的人 (They were people without history.)] 歐人以羅馬拼音標示原民部落及地名。根据Andrade 書, 原民在南台灣主要部落及地名有: Soulong(蕭瓏社, 今佳里); Bacculuan (目加留灣社, 今安定及善化); Sinkan (新港社, 今新市); Mattau (麻豆社, 今麻豆); Tevorang (大武瓏社, 今大內), Tavokan (大目降社, 今新化), Dorcko (哆咯國社, 今東山); Favorlang (虎尾社, 今雲林縣虎尾);Tirosen (諸羅社, 今嘉義); Gierin (二林社, 今彰化縣二林); Taccariang (打狗社, 今高雄); Dolatok (今屏東縣東港); Pangsoya (今 屏東縣林邊); Longkiau (瑯矯社, 今屏東縣恆春); Lamey Islands (今屏東縣小琉玻)等.
1642年荷軍北征擊敗西人, 而直接擴張荷殖民地到北台灣。北台灣之地名自然也開始出現在荷人文獻, 前面提及翁佳音著書, 就是根据1654年荷人繪著基隆，台北地區古地圖, 研究當代北台灣地理及原民社之分佈。
根据熟習荷文的翁佳音之研究, 就地標如山, 河, 港口及海角等而言, 這張古地圖是相當正確的, 該圖亦相當生動與有趣地標示田園, 森林, 山脈及未墾平埔地。我個人詳閱翁書後，同意翁氏的看法。去年三月總統大選後, 在家弟的Condo住過兩晚, 每天清晨在大直地區基隆河邊的河濱公園, 沿河北岸之步道, 一直往西南走到圓山前中山橋下折回。基於那兩天的經驗與認識, 筆者對翁氏書「第二章基隆河流域」特感興趣。地圖上有”Langeracq” (荷文意「長直河段」), 一直延伸到”Marnats bos (馬那特森林/山), 「長直河段」河之北岸有原民屋舍群也標示圖上。翁氏認為Marnats bos 就是今「圓山」, 「長直河段」即今「大直」，而原民屋舍群則為Cattaijo (搭搭攸)社。 他並指出西班牙人稱基隆河為Kimazon(奇馬遜) 河, 而荷人則稱之為Ritsouquire revier (里族河)。圓山到關渡之河段, 基隆河相當曲折，且河水開始西北流, 在今淡水入海。翁氏認定圖上Ruijhrn Hoeck (野生灌木林河角), 無異就是今天的關渡。關渡以下河床廣且長, 這條河當然是今淡水河。凡此種種，引起我回想去年三月漫步大直地段之基隆河北岸，頗有如四百年前原民之消遙生活於河邊。
1654年古地圖列有六十一 原民社,河川, 港灣, 建物名等, 以下僅列舉沿海岸及河川沿岸之主要原民社如下: Kelang (雞籠, 西班牙人取名為 La Santissima Trinidad 聖三位一体, 今基隆); Quimoury/Kimaurij (金包里社, 今為金山鄉專稱); Tapparij (沙巴里原社, 在今淡水中心); Sinack/Senar (林子社, 在今淡水林子); Rapan [是Kipatou/Pattau (北投社) 頭目之名, 此社在今淡水北投里]; Sirough/Chiron (秀朗社，今永和市); Kimassou/Malsaou (麻少翁社, 今士林); Cattaijo (搭搭攸社, 今大直), Litts(ouc)/Litsock (里族社, 今松山); Pinorouan (武勞灣社, 今板橋); Rijbats/Ribats (里末社, 今板橋); Prarihoon (八里岔社, 在今淡水河南岸); Tapien (大坌坑社, 在今淡水河南岸之觀音山) 等, 以上諸社多數在基隆河及淡水河之兩岸,它們屬於北台灣通常冠稱之Ketagaran (凱達格蘭)族 。
十七世紀荷人為培植台灣農業, 自福建大量引進講閩南語的漢農。 漢人以漢字音譯台灣原民地名。漢文字因是象形/會意文字, 當然不如語音文字之羅馬字, 後者比前者可以更正確地標示原民地名之聲音。 試舉例以說明, Kelang 原先僅指小島(雞籠嶼/社寮島, 今和平島), 後延伸指附近陸地的大 Kelang, 閩南系漢人以其音近似「雞籠」, 因以此漢名稱之。1875年清官吏以較文雅的「基隆」取代「雞籠」, 兩組漢名如以閩南語發音同為Kelang, 但如以北京官話(Mandarin)發音則為Chi-lung/Jilong。 1895年日本領台後, 依日語讀漢字, 「基隆」成為Kirun/Kiirun。Taccariang之例，更是有趣, 閩南系漢人先把Taccariang 縮短為Taccau, 而後以漢字「打狗」音譯之。1895日本領台後, 將打狗發展成一主要港口, 而以「高雄」取代「打狗」。依日語「高雄」仍然發音為Takao, 但中國國民党政權据台後，「高雄」依北京話卻讀成Kao-hsiung, 從Kao-hsiung 已聽不出其與原民的Taccariang有絲毫關係。再舉一到，屏東縣南部有一鄉 名「滿州」, 是否有人自滿州國移民耒台時把滿州地名也移植台灣？原來, 早在滿州國成立之前，日本殖民者以地名「蚊蟀(閩南語讀Ban-su)」, 音似「滿州(日語讀成Manshu)」, 因於1920年正式改地名為「滿州」。Bansu 應是源自原民的地名, 但「滿州」如依北京話讀則為Man-zhou, 當然與原音差距大。或者有人說「雞籠」，「打狗」及「蚊蟀」非常不文雅，是漢人輕視原民，所以選用，我不以為然，試想十七世紀赴台漢人，幾無例外都是文盲又貧困的農人，對他們來說，最要緊的應是不但能模仿原民發音並有助記憶，以上音譯漢字之妙，不言可喻。再說，其後外來統治者所採用看似文雅的地名，反而進一步引起新難題。歸根就底，原民地名如以漢字代替, 其發音因人而異, 結果可能盡失原音。
以上所舉諸例, 顯示殖民統治下台灣可悲的現象。台灣的外耒政權, 不僅因開發新領地，而需有新地名附與新開發地, 同時也因其他种种原因, 而以新名取代舊名, 致使四百年前原民在台灣西部平原的地名幾乎消失殆盡, 而歐人命名的地名更似乎僅存三紹角(Santiago)。在前後諸外耒政權中、中國國民黨政權因政治考量, 而造成新地名無限增加之現象。純綷日本式地名，如 當時台北圓山「昭和橋」改為「中山橋」，而台灣遠高於富士山的「新高山」被改名為「玉山」, 又, 城鎮,學校及都市街道更是幾乎一律取中國人名如「中山」及「中正」或中國本土原有地名。甚至 高雄縣內以布農原民居多數的「瑪雅村」被改名為「三民鄉」, 類似之例多不勝舉。
馬英九與其中國國民党政權於2008年五月再次掌權後, 以意識形態掛帥,在國內鴨霸至極，不顧民意，我行我素。最近馬英九獨自裁定, 要在七月裹把台北市國立台灣民主紀念館, 改回為國立中正紀念堂。相反地，對中華人民共和國共產政權, 馬英九卻硬不起耒，處處妥協讓步, 甚至犧牲台灣主權及尊嚴, 接受北京「一中原則」。 例如，最近經北京之認可， 台灣以「中華台北」名義, 取得國際衛生組織(WHO)的2008年度觀察員身份。馬英九不但不認為此舉有損台灣之尊嚴及主權, 且沾沾自喜誇言是他在國際上一大突破，這豈非天大笑話？凡此種種, 都說明四百年耒台灣人在一系列外來殖民政權統治下之悲哀。
去年(2008)三月台灣總統選舉, 我從聖地亞哥搭機回台投票。選舉結果使支持民進党的人大失所望。 選後第二天, 住台北大直的弟弟要開車帶我去散散心，我指定先到台灣東北角的三紹角參觀, 再去基隆和平島, 最後到淡水。 筆者對於以上三觀光點, 尤其是三紹角有特別興趣, 是有原因的。
退休後搬到聖地亞哥己經七年多。當年移居南加州，一方面因太太在聖地亞哥有親戚, 另方面也因為此地天侯及風景非常吸引人。住聖地亞哥不久, 又很快親驗到南加州多族群共存及多元性文化之可愛。 我們的住址從街名, 鎮名至州名都是源自西班牙語。美國人口最多的California, 州名的確來自西語。 直至1846年, California 仍是墨西哥領土的一部分, 而墨西哥本身從1540至1810是隸屬於西班牙。南加州地名源自西語比英語及原民語言為多, 就不足為奇了。[有關加州地名, 可參考Erwin G. Gudde, California Place Names, The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names (1960 Edition).]
1543 年萄匋牙人Juan Rodriquez Cabrillo 帶頭的西班牙船隊在聖地亞哥Point Loma 上岸, 其附近的海灣後耒稱Bay of San Diego, 而 岸上的城鎮則為 San Diego (聖地亞哥)。為了紀念歐人初次在加州最南端登陸, 美國聯邦政府在Point Loma設立隸屬國立公園系統的Cabrillo National Monument(紀念碑)。 据所知, 世界上僅西班牙有另一San Diego , 但是卻有不少Santiago, 幾乎西班牙航海家及征服者所到之處, 都有Santiago, 當然最有名應屬智利及古巴的Santiago。搬來聖地亞哥之後, 頭次參觀Cabrillo Monument, 很快連想到台灣東北角的三紹角不也是Santiago嗎？每有親友耒聖地亞哥, 我總是要帶他們去參觀Cabrillo Monument,並且告訴他們三紹角就是台灣的Santiago.
1626年西班牙船員在台灣東北角上陸, 此登陸點西人稱之為Santiago。 早期自閩南移民台灣的漢人以其音如「三紹角」, 因以「三紹角」稱呼之。去年三月首次訪三紹角時，我想像中直覺西人從海面方向所見三紹角應該很像San Diego的Point Loma，而且現今兩地山上都有燈塔及博物館, 甚至於山前或山腰都有墳地, Point Loma 有的是美國海軍的國家墳場 (National Cemetery), 但不同的是三紹角附近地段一直沒有發展, 至今還是個小村落， 而San Diego 則不但成為加州僅次於Los Angeles的第二大都市, 而且Bay of San Diego也成為美國主要海軍基地之一 。
當年，西人船隊於三紹角短停後, 接著佔領今基隆港灣內的社寮島(今和平島, 西人稱之為Santissima Trinidad)及滬尾(今淡水，稱之Castillo), 其勢力也及於東北部Cavalan(蛤仔難/噶瑪蘭社) 分佈之今宜蘭地區, 北台灣隨之成為西班牙殖民地, 不過西人佔領北台灣前後不過十六年(1626-1642)。
2008年三月從台灣回到聖地亞哥後, 我開始注意有關歐人統治台灣的歷史, 結果發現這方面最權威可靠的書應屬美國Emory University 史學教授Tonio Andrade 所著How Taiwan Became Chinese: Dutch, Spanish, and Han Colonization in the Seventeenth Century (2008)。 Andrade 的研究主要是利用十七世紀荷蘭人及西班牙人的原始資料, 尤其是荷蘭東印度公司(Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie 簡稱VOC)的文獻。我寫這篇短文, 另外也參考 中研院台史所研究員翁佳音所著 大台北古地圖考釋(1998), 作者解讀荷人於1654年所繪著的台北, 基隆地區古地圖。主要利用這兩本書, 我試圖介紹十七世紀台灣地名, 並以地名之變遷說明外族統治下台灣人之無奈。
西班牙人稱 台灣島為”Isla Hermosa”, 葡 萄牙語與西班牙語同屬Romance 語糸、因此文法及字句很接近, 西語的”Isla Hermosa” 就是葡語的”Ilha Formosa”。 1542年葡船航行穿過台灣海峽時, 船員見翠綠的樹林遍布島上高山與山丘, 而驚喜呼叫：”Ilha Formosa (美麗之島)！” 直至二戰結朿, 歐洲人及美洲人仍以”Formosa”稱台灣。
至於「台灣」又是怎麼來的？荷人於1624年登陸於Tayouan (今安平), 就地在Tayouan 建Fort Zeelandia (熱蘭遮城), 為荷人統治台灣(1624-1662)的政治及軍事中心。但以荷人，漢人及日人多聚居Tayouan 附近平原, Tayouan 因此逐漸被用以指稱全島，而漢移民則以大員/台員/大灣/台灣音譯Tayouan。 十七世紀漢移民幾無例外, 都是耒自福建閩南講閩南語（今台灣人通稱福老台語）的漢人，[客家人則於十八世紀才開始移民台灣。] 前舉四漢名詞的閩南語發音都是Tayouan. 而Tayouan 確實是當時台南地區Siraya (希拉亞)族所取地名, 由此可見Tayouan/Taiwan/台灣源自原住民而非漢人。
十七世西班牙人有稱台灣原任民為「Indio (印第安人)」之例, 而漢人則幾無例外稱呼原民為「番」。當時所有歐人統治下台灣地名幾乎可說都是原民所取， [翁佳音認為Tamsui(淡水) 為漢人所取地名，果如是它應該是十七世紀極少數例外之一。] 但因台灣原民本無文字, [Andrade 說他們是沒有歷史的人 (They were people without history.)] 歐人以羅馬拼音標示原民部落及地名。根据Andrade 書, 原民在南台灣主要部落及地名有: Soulong(蕭瓏社, 今佳里); Bacculuan (目加留灣社, 今安定及善化); Sinkan (新港社, 今新市); Mattau (麻豆社, 今麻豆); Tevorang (大武瓏社, 今大內), Tavokan (大目降社, 今新化), Dorcko (哆咯國社, 今東山); Favorlang (虎尾社, 今雲林縣虎尾);Tirosen (諸羅社, 今嘉義); Gierin (二林社, 今彰化縣二林); Taccariang (打狗社, 今高雄); Dolatok (今屏東縣東港); Pangsoya (今 屏東縣林邊); Longkiau (瑯矯社, 今屏東縣恆春); Lamey Islands (今屏東縣小琉玻)等.
1642年荷軍北征擊敗西人, 而直接擴張荷殖民地到北台灣。北台灣之地名自然也開始出現在荷人文獻, 前面提及翁佳音著書, 就是根据1654年荷人繪著基隆，台北地區古地圖, 研究當代北台灣地理及原民社之分佈。
根据熟習荷文的翁佳音之研究, 就地標如山, 河, 港口及海角等而言, 這張古地圖是相當正確的, 該圖亦相當生動與有趣地標示田園, 森林, 山脈及未墾平埔地。我個人詳閱翁書後，同意翁氏的看法。去年三月總統大選後, 在家弟的Condo住過兩晚, 每天清晨在大直地區基隆河邊的河濱公園, 沿河北岸之步道, 一直往西南走到圓山前中山橋下折回。基於那兩天的經驗與認識, 筆者對翁氏書「第二章基隆河流域」特感興趣。地圖上有”Langeracq” (荷文意「長直河段」), 一直延伸到”Marnats bos (馬那特森林/山), 「長直河段」河之北岸有原民屋舍群也標示圖上。翁氏認為Marnats bos 就是今「圓山」, 「長直河段」即今「大直」，而原民屋舍群則為Cattaijo (搭搭攸)社。 他並指出西班牙人稱基隆河為Kimazon(奇馬遜) 河, 而荷人則稱之為Ritsouquire revier (里族河)。圓山到關渡之河段, 基隆河相當曲折，且河水開始西北流, 在今淡水入海。翁氏認定圖上Ruijhrn Hoeck (野生灌木林河角), 無異就是今天的關渡。關渡以下河床廣且長, 這條河當然是今淡水河。凡此種種，引起我回想去年三月漫步大直地段之基隆河北岸，頗有如四百年前原民之消遙生活於河邊。
1654年古地圖列有六十一 原民社,河川, 港灣, 建物名等, 以下僅列舉沿海岸及河川沿岸之主要原民社如下: Kelang (雞籠, 西班牙人取名為 La Santissima Trinidad 聖三位一体, 今基隆); Quimoury/Kimaurij (金包里社, 今為金山鄉專稱); Tapparij (沙巴里原社, 在今淡水中心); Sinack/Senar (林子社, 在今淡水林子); Rapan [是Kipatou/Pattau (北投社) 頭目之名, 此社在今淡水北投里]; Sirough/Chiron (秀朗社，今永和市); Kimassou/Malsaou (麻少翁社, 今士林); Cattaijo (搭搭攸社, 今大直), Litts(ouc)/Litsock (里族社, 今松山); Pinorouan (武勞灣社, 今板橋); Rijbats/Ribats (里末社, 今板橋); Prarihoon (八里岔社, 在今淡水河南岸); Tapien (大坌坑社, 在今淡水河南岸之觀音山) 等, 以上諸社多數在基隆河及淡水河之兩岸,它們屬於北台灣通常冠稱之Ketagaran (凱達格蘭)族 。
十七世紀荷人為培植台灣農業, 自福建大量引進講閩南語的漢農。 漢人以漢字音譯台灣原民地名。漢文字因是象形/會意文字, 當然不如語音文字之羅馬字, 後者比前者可以更正確地標示原民地名之聲音。 試舉例以說明, Kelang 原先僅指小島(雞籠嶼/社寮島, 今和平島), 後延伸指附近陸地的大 Kelang, 閩南系漢人以其音近似「雞籠」, 因以此漢名稱之。1875年清官吏以較文雅的「基隆」取代「雞籠」, 兩組漢名如以閩南語發音同為Kelang, 但如以北京官話(Mandarin)發音則為Chi-lung/Jilong。 1895年日本領台後, 依日語讀漢字, 「基隆」成為Kirun/Kiirun。Taccariang之例，更是有趣, 閩南系漢人先把Taccariang 縮短為Taccau, 而後以漢字「打狗」音譯之。1895日本領台後, 將打狗發展成一主要港口, 而以「高雄」取代「打狗」。依日語「高雄」仍然發音為Takao, 但中國國民党政權据台後，「高雄」依北京話卻讀成Kao-hsiung, 從Kao-hsiung 已聽不出其與原民的Taccariang有絲毫關係。再舉一到，屏東縣南部有一鄉 名「滿州」, 是否有人自滿州國移民耒台時把滿州地名也移植台灣？原來, 早在滿州國成立之前，日本殖民者以地名「蚊蟀(閩南語讀Ban-su)」, 音似「滿州(日語讀成Manshu)」, 因於1920年正式改地名為「滿州」。Bansu 應是源自原民的地名, 但「滿州」如依北京話讀則為Man-zhou, 當然與原音差距大。或者有人說「雞籠」，「打狗」及「蚊蟀」非常不文雅，是漢人輕視原民，所以選用，我不以為然，試想十七世紀赴台漢人，幾無例外都是文盲又貧困的農人，對他們來說，最要緊的應是不但能模仿原民發音並有助記憶，以上音譯漢字之妙，不言可喻。再說，其後外來統治者所採用看似文雅的地名，反而進一步引起新難題。歸根就底，原民地名如以漢字代替, 其發音因人而異, 結果可能盡失原音。
以上所舉諸例, 顯示殖民統治下台灣可悲的現象。台灣的外耒政權, 不僅因開發新領地，而需有新地名附與新開發地, 同時也因其他种种原因, 而以新名取代舊名, 致使四百年前原民在台灣西部平原的地名幾乎消失殆盡, 而歐人命名的地名更似乎僅存三紹角(Santiago)。在前後諸外耒政權中、中國國民黨政權因政治考量, 而造成新地名無限增加之現象。純綷日本式地名，如 當時台北圓山「昭和橋」改為「中山橋」，而台灣遠高於富士山的「新高山」被改名為「玉山」, 又, 城鎮,學校及都市街道更是幾乎一律取中國人名如「中山」及「中正」或中國本土原有地名。甚至 高雄縣內以布農原民居多數的「瑪雅村」被改名為「三民鄉」, 類似之例多不勝舉。
馬英九與其中國國民党政權於2008年五月再次掌權後, 以意識形態掛帥,在國內鴨霸至極，不顧民意，我行我素。最近馬英九獨自裁定, 要在七月裹把台北市國立台灣民主紀念館, 改回為國立中正紀念堂。相反地，對中華人民共和國共產政權, 馬英九卻硬不起耒，處處妥協讓步, 甚至犧牲台灣主權及尊嚴, 接受北京「一中原則」。 例如，最近經北京之認可， 台灣以「中華台北」名義, 取得國際衛生組織(WHO)的2008年度觀察員身份。馬英九不但不認為此舉有損台灣之尊嚴及主權, 且沾沾自喜誇言是他在國際上一大突破，這豈非天大笑話？凡此種種, 都說明四百年耒台灣人在一系列外來殖民政權統治下之悲哀。
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
從組織抗原推論閩南人及客家人，所謂「台灣人」的來源
http://www.wufi.org.tw/linmali.htm
林媽利 (馬偕紀念醫院輸血醫學研究室)
摘要台灣的閩南人及客家人也就是所謂的「台灣人」(以下均以括弧的「台灣人」代表閩南人及客家人)，是近幾世紀以來自中國大陸東南沿海地區移民的後代，在基因上經族群系統發生樹( phylogenetic tree )及族群相關分析( correspondence analysis ) 研究計算後，發現閩南人及客家人是屬於南亞洲人種，這剛好配合民族史的記載，認為「台灣人」是大陸東南沿海原住民「越族」的後代。A33-B58-DRB1*03 ( 即A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02 )是「台灣人」最常見的組織抗原(HLA)半套體，頻率為6.3%，而這半套體在新加坡華人及泰國華人也算是最常見，顯示這是被完整保留下來的古代越族的基因。
前言「台灣人」是台灣島上最大的族群，袓先是近400年從大陸東南沿海地區移民過來的。先民到達台灣後，不少和原住民通婚，主要是和平地的平埔族，也有和高山原住民。在我們以前的研究發現「台灣人」13%的基因( HLA-A,B,C半套體 )是來自原住民，在那個研究我們是做了九族高山原住民及在消失中的「巴宰」平埔族的研究，這雖然顯示「台灣人」的基因中並沒有像想像中的有許多原住民的基因，但因為昔日的九族平埔族現在已不易找到，無從研究及比較，所以到底有多少現在「台灣人」的基因是來自這些已經消失的平埔族是不得而知的(參考文獻1)。但是另一方面「台灣人」經口述或從族譜代代相傳，自認「台灣人」的祖先是來自中國北方的中原，在漢朝及以後的幾百年當中為了逃避北方匈奴的侵略而南遷到中國大陸東南沿海地區，所以「台灣人」應該算是北方中原漢人的純種後代，所以屬於偉大的漢人傳統「華夏」。在這研究中我們分析閩南人及客家人的HLA(為組織抗原的簡稱)資料，建構族群系統發生樹、畫製族群的相關分析圖、追蹤及比對在閩南人客家人最常見的HLA半套體在別族群出現的情形，借此希望澄清有關「台灣人」的來源。
材料及方法我們研究在馬偕醫院做家族血緣關係的123個家族，當中共有167人為互相無血緣關係的「台灣人」，其中136人有閩南人的雙親，24人有客家人的雙親，及7個人各有一個閩南人及客家人的父母。
血液檢體經血清學的方法利用Terasaki Chinese HLA-A,B,C 72洞的測定盤及後來的Terasaki單株抗體亞洲HLA class I測定盤，以測定HLA型別。所有的檢體也都經我們發展出來的「台灣HLA class I測定盤」測試。HLA-class II DNA的測定是用中等解析度的One Lamda Micro SSP Generic HLA class II DNA測定盤做的。我們也檢測取自75個互相無血緣關係客家人的血液檢體(32人取自屏東縣萬巒鄉及內埔鄉，43人取自新竹縣新埔鎮)，這些人的父母親都是客家人。我們將這75個檢體當成panel細胞參加1998年日本紅十字會中心區組織配合研討會，所以這些細胞和日本、韓國、泰國、美國、非洲及台灣等參加的實驗室收集到的420個抗血清反應，而測定出HLA class I的分型。這75人也做HLA class II的DNA測定。 136個閩南人及99個客家人 ( 24+75 ) 的HLA-A, B, C, DRB1及DQB1基因頻率是根據第11屆國際組織抗原研討會(11th IHW)發展出來的最大的可能性法 ( maximum likelihood method ) 計算得到(參考文獻2)。至於A-Cw-B, A-B-DRB1及A-Cw-B-DRB1-DQB1半套體的頻率是經由直接計算血緣鑑定個案的半套體數得到。族群間基因距離的遠近D (1972年 Nei的標準基因距離，參考文獻3)及DA (1983年Nei設計，參考文獻4)的計算是依據本報告的頻率與11th IHW許多別族群HLA-A,B,C基因頻率的報告(見參考文獻5)的比較，再經 “ODEN”計算(一個開放使用的電腦軟體)。我們研究的族群標明在圖1，計算出的基因距離D經鄰近連接法( neighbor-joining method，參考文獻6 ) 建構的族群系統發生樹如圖2。根據許多族群不同的HLA-A,B,C基因頻率，經Vista ( 一個開放使用的電腦軟體，http://forrest.psych.unc.edu )畫製出來的族群相關分析圖如圖3，這報告研究的族群包含本報告的閩南人、客家人及11th IHW的許多族群。
結果136個閩南人及99個客家人HLA-A, B, C, DRB1及DQB1的基因頻率如表1，可見到A2及B27的基因頻率在這兩族群間有明顯的差別(P < 0.05)，這很可能是由於我們個案數不夠引起的，因為在另一多個案數的研究報告中並沒有這個差別(參考文獻7)。客家人Cw8基因頻率較高而CBL較低，可能是因為客家人的檢體大部份由420個HLA抗血清測定而得到的結果，因為一般的測定盤較不易測到Cw8而變成CBL。A2, A1101, B60, B46, B58, B13, Cw10, Cw7, Cw1, DRB1*04, DRB1*09, DQB1*06, DQB1*0301及DQB1*05在這兩個族群中有高的基因頻率。分析「台灣人」HLA半套體A-Cw-B, A-B-DR及A-Cw-B-DR-DQ在我們研究的家族中出現的情形，結果發現A-Cw-B 3個基因位半套體有在這些「台灣人」家族中共出現126不同的組合，A-B-DR有212組，A-Cw-B-DR-DQ有247組。只有A-Cw-B 3個基因位的半套體在這些家族出現的數目超過6次的才顯示於表2，而A-Cw-B-DR-DQ 5個基因位的半套體數出現超過4次的顯示於表3。從表2可見5個最常見A-Cw-B 3個基因位的半套體是A33-Cw10-B58 (10.8%)，A2-Cw1-B46 (7.8%)，A1101-Cw7-B60 (5.7%)，A1101-Cw10-B13 (3.9%)及A1101-Cw1-B46 (3.2%)，而5個最常見的A-B-DR 3個基因位的半套體是A33-B58-DRB1*03 (6.3%)，A2-B46-DRB1*09 (3.0%)，A33-B58-DRB1*13 (3.0%)，A1101-B13-DRB1*15 (1.8%)及A1101-B75-DRB1*12 (1.8%)。表3顯示在「台灣人」3個最常見的A-Cw-B-DR-DQ 5個基因位的半套體是A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02 (6.3%)，A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*13-DQB1*06 (3%) 及A2-Cw1-B46-DRB1*09-DQB1*0303 (2.7%)。從計算得到基因距離的D所建構的族群系統發生樹如圖2，可以看到閩南人及客家人先合併在一起(顯示為基因最接近及最相似的2個族群)，然為後再和泰國華人及新加坡華人接連起來，成一個發生樹的一枝，這一枝和旁邊的由泰國人、越南人、布依族人形成的一枝及由南方漢人及苗族所成的一枝連起來而成南亞洲族群枝。黎族成一獨立的一枝，而北方漢人與北亞洲族群的回族、滿族、蒙古人、Buriat人、Uygur人、哥薩克人、韓國人、日本人及鄂倫春人在一起。我們用DA建構的族群系統發生樹也是將南亞洲及北亞洲族群分開。以基因頻率計算及繪製的有關閩南人、客家人及許多亞洲族群的族群相對分析圖，點畫出的關係如圖3，同樣顯示閩南人、客家人與其他南方的亞洲族群包括南方漢人、新加坡華人及泰國華人靠近而成一群。北方漢人和韓國人、滿族及回族成一群。台灣原住民和新幾內亞高地人成另一群。
討論因為HLA是多變異及多樣化的基因系統，所以是研究族群關係很好的材料，HLA在不同族群間所顯示的差異比別的基因系統還要明顯，且利用HLA的半套體研究時差異更顯著，所以是一個很好的研究族群關係的指標。許多半套體由特定的HLA基因構成而經過幾千年許多世代的傳嫡而不改變，而且每個特定的半套體的分佈有其地域的限制。所以HLA半套體在探討相近族群間的關係時是強而有力的基因標誌 (參考資料8)。利用家族的分析是研究多個基因位上HLA半套體的分佈情形最好的方法，雖然過去有幾個有關台灣HLA半套體分佈的研究，都是經統計計算得到的，我們的報告是第一個用家族的分析得到「台灣人」HLA半套體分佈的情形而加以研究的。 A33-B58-DRB1*03是「台灣人」最常見A-B-DR 3個基因位的半套體(6.3%)，且完整的經過千年被保存下來，其相對的五個基因位半套體是同頻率的A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02 (6.3%)。慈濟台灣骨髓登錄也和我們有相似的結果(參考文獻7)，他們經計算也發現A33-B58-DR17( 即DRB1*03 )半套體是「台灣人」最常見的半套體，佔閩南人7137人中5.5%，及客家人714人中5.10%。A33-B58-DRB1*03半套體也在東南亞(泰國華人7.1%，新加坡華人4.4%，參考文獻5)及北方亞洲人發現(在烏魯木齊的漢人3.5%，蒙古的Khalha族3.4%、烏魯木齊的Uygur 1.8%、哥薩克人 1.8%、韓國人1.2%，參考文獻9、10)，而同樣的5個基因位的半套體在泰人可以看到(泰國人2.2%，Black Thai 2.8% ，參考文獻11)。另一有趣的所見是HLA-A,B 2個基因位的半套體A33-B58在南方漢人(檢驗人數為138人，取自湖南及福建2省，參考文獻5)只有2.4%，如再加上檢測DR基因位而成A-B-DR半套體時，因所得數目太小在11th IHW變成無意義的數目。另一方面較早期的報告A33-B17( B58是屬於B17 )的半套體在南方漢人的頻率(檢驗844人)是1.53%而南方少數民族(檢驗621人)的頻率為1.29%(參考文獻12)。在另一個報告，A33-Cw10-B58在北方漢人發現(檢驗196人)為3.1% (參考文獻13)，但這跟隨的DR基因在東北亞洲人應該是DR13而不是在「台灣人」的DR3，所以B58-DR3半套體的分佈是明顯的集中在東南亞的族群(參考文獻8)。A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02的3或5個基因位的半套體雖然可在東亞或東南亞看到，但最高的頻率是在「台灣人」、新加坡華人及泰國華人，而這三個族群的祖先都是在近幾百年才從大陸東南沿海移民出去的，因此這半套體可以說是這三個族群一直保存下來的遺傳標誌。
「台灣人」第二個常見的3個基因位的半套體在我們的研究是A2-B46-DRB1*09 (3.0%)，根據文獻也在別的族群發現，包括新加坡華人(7.7%)、越南人(5.2%)、南方漢人(5.1%)、泰國人(4.7%)及泰國華人(2.4%)，而相對的5個基因位的半套體A2-Cw1-B46-DRB1*09-DQB1*0303 (2.7%)也在Black Thai (8.3%)，Dai Lui(泰北的傣族5.1%) 及泰國人(2.1%) 看到，顯示為亞洲南方族群的半套體(參考文獻5、8、11)。就單單從許多HLA研究的結果，長久以來即已經知道北方漢人及南方漢人在基因上不同(參考文獻7、8、14、15)，這和發現的中國史前資料及有文字記載以後的歷史相配合。「中原文化」是在中國北方黃河的黃土高原發展出來的，從最近挖掘出來的粟米(millets)可以追朔到公元前6到7千年之久。中原文化在夏、商、周時期是在長江以北，直到秦朝(公元前221-206年)後政治的勢力才及於中國大陸的中南方(參考文獻17)。最近的考古研究發現在中國大陸南方，在同一個時候存在另一個獨立且不同於中原文化的「越沿海文化」，從長江三角洲到越南北方的紅河三角洲(參考文獻18)。但是南方的歷史只從公元前500年左右吳越相爭之前才開始有的，越王勾踐的「臥薪嚐膽」復國的故事是大家所熟悉的。「越族」是指大陸東南沿海( 浙江、福建、廣東及廣西 )的居民，在漢朝以前因為這地區文化的多樣性而被稱為「百越」。除了春秋戰國的吳越相爭及在漢朝時期部份越族的北移外，在中國的歷史(即中原文化的歷史)並沒有太多有關越族的記載，因為在中國的歷史除了中原文化外，其他族群均屬「蠻族」(參考文獻17、19)。閩人及台灣閩南人的祖先是居住在福建的越族，根據林惠祥(參考文獻17)及Meacham的研究(參考文獻19)，今日的閩人是東南沿海地區原住民「越族」的後代，雖然在秦漢及接下來的魏晉南北朝五胡亂華時期，因為戰亂北方中原人士紛紛南遷，而可能引起部份有限的中原基因的滲入。當「越」的文化漸漸被「漢」化後，「越族」就在歷史上被改名成「漢族」，導至今日台灣的閩南人錯誤的判斷且自認為是純種北方漢族的後代。在中國歷史上許多民族接受漢文化而漢化，後來這些人民也常常宣稱他們是漢族，這是因為在過去漢文化是強勢文化，所以當了漢人可得到利益及社會地位(參考文獻17、19、20)。在客家人的情形也是相似，在南宋(1127-1279AD)或更早的時期有少數的中原家族南遷到東南沿海的山區，這些人以強勢的漢文化在文化及語言上影響周遭的原住民，特別是住在廣東的越族，所以以早期的少數中原移民加上眾多的越族而成客家族群(參考文獻21)。
我們以統計得到基因距離D及DA建構的族群系統發生樹，顯示閩南人與客家人有相當一致的基因，所以先合在一起，然後再和泰國華人、新加坡華人合併成一枝，而這些族群都是起緣於東南沿岸的原住民「越族」，其中最重要的是「台灣人」明顯的和北方漢人分開。慈濟骨髓登錄的資料建構的族群系統發生樹顯示「台灣人」和南方漢人合併，但和北方漢人分開(參考文獻8)。其他許多HLA的研究，及別的基因和遺傳標誌，像免疫球蛋白(參考文獻22)、血型(參考文獻23)、葡萄糖六磷酸去氫酵素(參考文獻24)及染色體DNA微衛星(參考文獻25)等，都明顯的把「台灣人」和北方漢人分開。不久前中國北京的中科院遺傳研究所和美國史坦福大學Cavalli-Sforza合作研究，以中國人的姓氏及三種簡單的血型分佈情形將北方漢人與南方漢人分開(參考文獻20)，在該項研究中南方漢人再被分為3群，即長江下游以上海為中心的一群、長江流域的一群及另一群屬於越族的東南沿海地區及島嶼(包括台灣)的居民。中國人的姓氏約有4000年的歷史而且是由男性傳承，所以可以認為代表Y染色體的遺傳，該研究更借著中國的28省加上台灣以ABO、MN及Rh(D) 血型的基因頻率而計算出族群的關係，畫製成的第一度及第二度空間上的族群主要相關圖明顯的把東南沿海地區及台灣的居民(即越族)與其他地區的居民分開。
以上資料顯示南方漢人是緣自南方而有別於北方漢人，「台灣人」是古代越族的後代而保存著古代越族的基因A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02。有關「台灣人」與南方漢人的基因距離的遠近，有待將來的研究，因為現在這研究中所用的南方漢人資料有一半是自福建(參考文獻5)。
林媽利 (馬偕紀念醫院輸血醫學研究室)
摘要台灣的閩南人及客家人也就是所謂的「台灣人」(以下均以括弧的「台灣人」代表閩南人及客家人)，是近幾世紀以來自中國大陸東南沿海地區移民的後代，在基因上經族群系統發生樹( phylogenetic tree )及族群相關分析( correspondence analysis ) 研究計算後，發現閩南人及客家人是屬於南亞洲人種，這剛好配合民族史的記載，認為「台灣人」是大陸東南沿海原住民「越族」的後代。A33-B58-DRB1*03 ( 即A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02 )是「台灣人」最常見的組織抗原(HLA)半套體，頻率為6.3%，而這半套體在新加坡華人及泰國華人也算是最常見，顯示這是被完整保留下來的古代越族的基因。
前言「台灣人」是台灣島上最大的族群，袓先是近400年從大陸東南沿海地區移民過來的。先民到達台灣後，不少和原住民通婚，主要是和平地的平埔族，也有和高山原住民。在我們以前的研究發現「台灣人」13%的基因( HLA-A,B,C半套體 )是來自原住民，在那個研究我們是做了九族高山原住民及在消失中的「巴宰」平埔族的研究，這雖然顯示「台灣人」的基因中並沒有像想像中的有許多原住民的基因，但因為昔日的九族平埔族現在已不易找到，無從研究及比較，所以到底有多少現在「台灣人」的基因是來自這些已經消失的平埔族是不得而知的(參考文獻1)。但是另一方面「台灣人」經口述或從族譜代代相傳，自認「台灣人」的祖先是來自中國北方的中原，在漢朝及以後的幾百年當中為了逃避北方匈奴的侵略而南遷到中國大陸東南沿海地區，所以「台灣人」應該算是北方中原漢人的純種後代，所以屬於偉大的漢人傳統「華夏」。在這研究中我們分析閩南人及客家人的HLA(為組織抗原的簡稱)資料，建構族群系統發生樹、畫製族群的相關分析圖、追蹤及比對在閩南人客家人最常見的HLA半套體在別族群出現的情形，借此希望澄清有關「台灣人」的來源。
材料及方法我們研究在馬偕醫院做家族血緣關係的123個家族，當中共有167人為互相無血緣關係的「台灣人」，其中136人有閩南人的雙親，24人有客家人的雙親，及7個人各有一個閩南人及客家人的父母。
血液檢體經血清學的方法利用Terasaki Chinese HLA-A,B,C 72洞的測定盤及後來的Terasaki單株抗體亞洲HLA class I測定盤，以測定HLA型別。所有的檢體也都經我們發展出來的「台灣HLA class I測定盤」測試。HLA-class II DNA的測定是用中等解析度的One Lamda Micro SSP Generic HLA class II DNA測定盤做的。我們也檢測取自75個互相無血緣關係客家人的血液檢體(32人取自屏東縣萬巒鄉及內埔鄉，43人取自新竹縣新埔鎮)，這些人的父母親都是客家人。我們將這75個檢體當成panel細胞參加1998年日本紅十字會中心區組織配合研討會，所以這些細胞和日本、韓國、泰國、美國、非洲及台灣等參加的實驗室收集到的420個抗血清反應，而測定出HLA class I的分型。這75人也做HLA class II的DNA測定。 136個閩南人及99個客家人 ( 24+75 ) 的HLA-A, B, C, DRB1及DQB1基因頻率是根據第11屆國際組織抗原研討會(11th IHW)發展出來的最大的可能性法 ( maximum likelihood method ) 計算得到(參考文獻2)。至於A-Cw-B, A-B-DRB1及A-Cw-B-DRB1-DQB1半套體的頻率是經由直接計算血緣鑑定個案的半套體數得到。族群間基因距離的遠近D (1972年 Nei的標準基因距離，參考文獻3)及DA (1983年Nei設計，參考文獻4)的計算是依據本報告的頻率與11th IHW許多別族群HLA-A,B,C基因頻率的報告(見參考文獻5)的比較，再經 “ODEN”計算(一個開放使用的電腦軟體)。我們研究的族群標明在圖1，計算出的基因距離D經鄰近連接法( neighbor-joining method，參考文獻6 ) 建構的族群系統發生樹如圖2。根據許多族群不同的HLA-A,B,C基因頻率，經Vista ( 一個開放使用的電腦軟體，http://forrest.psych.unc.edu )畫製出來的族群相關分析圖如圖3，這報告研究的族群包含本報告的閩南人、客家人及11th IHW的許多族群。
結果136個閩南人及99個客家人HLA-A, B, C, DRB1及DQB1的基因頻率如表1，可見到A2及B27的基因頻率在這兩族群間有明顯的差別(P < 0.05)，這很可能是由於我們個案數不夠引起的，因為在另一多個案數的研究報告中並沒有這個差別(參考文獻7)。客家人Cw8基因頻率較高而CBL較低，可能是因為客家人的檢體大部份由420個HLA抗血清測定而得到的結果，因為一般的測定盤較不易測到Cw8而變成CBL。A2, A1101, B60, B46, B58, B13, Cw10, Cw7, Cw1, DRB1*04, DRB1*09, DQB1*06, DQB1*0301及DQB1*05在這兩個族群中有高的基因頻率。分析「台灣人」HLA半套體A-Cw-B, A-B-DR及A-Cw-B-DR-DQ在我們研究的家族中出現的情形，結果發現A-Cw-B 3個基因位半套體有在這些「台灣人」家族中共出現126不同的組合，A-B-DR有212組，A-Cw-B-DR-DQ有247組。只有A-Cw-B 3個基因位的半套體在這些家族出現的數目超過6次的才顯示於表2，而A-Cw-B-DR-DQ 5個基因位的半套體數出現超過4次的顯示於表3。從表2可見5個最常見A-Cw-B 3個基因位的半套體是A33-Cw10-B58 (10.8%)，A2-Cw1-B46 (7.8%)，A1101-Cw7-B60 (5.7%)，A1101-Cw10-B13 (3.9%)及A1101-Cw1-B46 (3.2%)，而5個最常見的A-B-DR 3個基因位的半套體是A33-B58-DRB1*03 (6.3%)，A2-B46-DRB1*09 (3.0%)，A33-B58-DRB1*13 (3.0%)，A1101-B13-DRB1*15 (1.8%)及A1101-B75-DRB1*12 (1.8%)。表3顯示在「台灣人」3個最常見的A-Cw-B-DR-DQ 5個基因位的半套體是A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02 (6.3%)，A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*13-DQB1*06 (3%) 及A2-Cw1-B46-DRB1*09-DQB1*0303 (2.7%)。從計算得到基因距離的D所建構的族群系統發生樹如圖2，可以看到閩南人及客家人先合併在一起(顯示為基因最接近及最相似的2個族群)，然為後再和泰國華人及新加坡華人接連起來，成一個發生樹的一枝，這一枝和旁邊的由泰國人、越南人、布依族人形成的一枝及由南方漢人及苗族所成的一枝連起來而成南亞洲族群枝。黎族成一獨立的一枝，而北方漢人與北亞洲族群的回族、滿族、蒙古人、Buriat人、Uygur人、哥薩克人、韓國人、日本人及鄂倫春人在一起。我們用DA建構的族群系統發生樹也是將南亞洲及北亞洲族群分開。以基因頻率計算及繪製的有關閩南人、客家人及許多亞洲族群的族群相對分析圖，點畫出的關係如圖3，同樣顯示閩南人、客家人與其他南方的亞洲族群包括南方漢人、新加坡華人及泰國華人靠近而成一群。北方漢人和韓國人、滿族及回族成一群。台灣原住民和新幾內亞高地人成另一群。
討論因為HLA是多變異及多樣化的基因系統，所以是研究族群關係很好的材料，HLA在不同族群間所顯示的差異比別的基因系統還要明顯，且利用HLA的半套體研究時差異更顯著，所以是一個很好的研究族群關係的指標。許多半套體由特定的HLA基因構成而經過幾千年許多世代的傳嫡而不改變，而且每個特定的半套體的分佈有其地域的限制。所以HLA半套體在探討相近族群間的關係時是強而有力的基因標誌 (參考資料8)。利用家族的分析是研究多個基因位上HLA半套體的分佈情形最好的方法，雖然過去有幾個有關台灣HLA半套體分佈的研究，都是經統計計算得到的，我們的報告是第一個用家族的分析得到「台灣人」HLA半套體分佈的情形而加以研究的。 A33-B58-DRB1*03是「台灣人」最常見A-B-DR 3個基因位的半套體(6.3%)，且完整的經過千年被保存下來，其相對的五個基因位半套體是同頻率的A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02 (6.3%)。慈濟台灣骨髓登錄也和我們有相似的結果(參考文獻7)，他們經計算也發現A33-B58-DR17( 即DRB1*03 )半套體是「台灣人」最常見的半套體，佔閩南人7137人中5.5%，及客家人714人中5.10%。A33-B58-DRB1*03半套體也在東南亞(泰國華人7.1%，新加坡華人4.4%，參考文獻5)及北方亞洲人發現(在烏魯木齊的漢人3.5%，蒙古的Khalha族3.4%、烏魯木齊的Uygur 1.8%、哥薩克人 1.8%、韓國人1.2%，參考文獻9、10)，而同樣的5個基因位的半套體在泰人可以看到(泰國人2.2%，Black Thai 2.8% ，參考文獻11)。另一有趣的所見是HLA-A,B 2個基因位的半套體A33-B58在南方漢人(檢驗人數為138人，取自湖南及福建2省，參考文獻5)只有2.4%，如再加上檢測DR基因位而成A-B-DR半套體時，因所得數目太小在11th IHW變成無意義的數目。另一方面較早期的報告A33-B17( B58是屬於B17 )的半套體在南方漢人的頻率(檢驗844人)是1.53%而南方少數民族(檢驗621人)的頻率為1.29%(參考文獻12)。在另一個報告，A33-Cw10-B58在北方漢人發現(檢驗196人)為3.1% (參考文獻13)，但這跟隨的DR基因在東北亞洲人應該是DR13而不是在「台灣人」的DR3，所以B58-DR3半套體的分佈是明顯的集中在東南亞的族群(參考文獻8)。A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02的3或5個基因位的半套體雖然可在東亞或東南亞看到，但最高的頻率是在「台灣人」、新加坡華人及泰國華人，而這三個族群的祖先都是在近幾百年才從大陸東南沿海移民出去的，因此這半套體可以說是這三個族群一直保存下來的遺傳標誌。
「台灣人」第二個常見的3個基因位的半套體在我們的研究是A2-B46-DRB1*09 (3.0%)，根據文獻也在別的族群發現，包括新加坡華人(7.7%)、越南人(5.2%)、南方漢人(5.1%)、泰國人(4.7%)及泰國華人(2.4%)，而相對的5個基因位的半套體A2-Cw1-B46-DRB1*09-DQB1*0303 (2.7%)也在Black Thai (8.3%)，Dai Lui(泰北的傣族5.1%) 及泰國人(2.1%) 看到，顯示為亞洲南方族群的半套體(參考文獻5、8、11)。就單單從許多HLA研究的結果，長久以來即已經知道北方漢人及南方漢人在基因上不同(參考文獻7、8、14、15)，這和發現的中國史前資料及有文字記載以後的歷史相配合。「中原文化」是在中國北方黃河的黃土高原發展出來的，從最近挖掘出來的粟米(millets)可以追朔到公元前6到7千年之久。中原文化在夏、商、周時期是在長江以北，直到秦朝(公元前221-206年)後政治的勢力才及於中國大陸的中南方(參考文獻17)。最近的考古研究發現在中國大陸南方，在同一個時候存在另一個獨立且不同於中原文化的「越沿海文化」，從長江三角洲到越南北方的紅河三角洲(參考文獻18)。但是南方的歷史只從公元前500年左右吳越相爭之前才開始有的，越王勾踐的「臥薪嚐膽」復國的故事是大家所熟悉的。「越族」是指大陸東南沿海( 浙江、福建、廣東及廣西 )的居民，在漢朝以前因為這地區文化的多樣性而被稱為「百越」。除了春秋戰國的吳越相爭及在漢朝時期部份越族的北移外，在中國的歷史(即中原文化的歷史)並沒有太多有關越族的記載，因為在中國的歷史除了中原文化外，其他族群均屬「蠻族」(參考文獻17、19)。閩人及台灣閩南人的祖先是居住在福建的越族，根據林惠祥(參考文獻17)及Meacham的研究(參考文獻19)，今日的閩人是東南沿海地區原住民「越族」的後代，雖然在秦漢及接下來的魏晉南北朝五胡亂華時期，因為戰亂北方中原人士紛紛南遷，而可能引起部份有限的中原基因的滲入。當「越」的文化漸漸被「漢」化後，「越族」就在歷史上被改名成「漢族」，導至今日台灣的閩南人錯誤的判斷且自認為是純種北方漢族的後代。在中國歷史上許多民族接受漢文化而漢化，後來這些人民也常常宣稱他們是漢族，這是因為在過去漢文化是強勢文化，所以當了漢人可得到利益及社會地位(參考文獻17、19、20)。在客家人的情形也是相似，在南宋(1127-1279AD)或更早的時期有少數的中原家族南遷到東南沿海的山區，這些人以強勢的漢文化在文化及語言上影響周遭的原住民，特別是住在廣東的越族，所以以早期的少數中原移民加上眾多的越族而成客家族群(參考文獻21)。
我們以統計得到基因距離D及DA建構的族群系統發生樹，顯示閩南人與客家人有相當一致的基因，所以先合在一起，然後再和泰國華人、新加坡華人合併成一枝，而這些族群都是起緣於東南沿岸的原住民「越族」，其中最重要的是「台灣人」明顯的和北方漢人分開。慈濟骨髓登錄的資料建構的族群系統發生樹顯示「台灣人」和南方漢人合併，但和北方漢人分開(參考文獻8)。其他許多HLA的研究，及別的基因和遺傳標誌，像免疫球蛋白(參考文獻22)、血型(參考文獻23)、葡萄糖六磷酸去氫酵素(參考文獻24)及染色體DNA微衛星(參考文獻25)等，都明顯的把「台灣人」和北方漢人分開。不久前中國北京的中科院遺傳研究所和美國史坦福大學Cavalli-Sforza合作研究，以中國人的姓氏及三種簡單的血型分佈情形將北方漢人與南方漢人分開(參考文獻20)，在該項研究中南方漢人再被分為3群，即長江下游以上海為中心的一群、長江流域的一群及另一群屬於越族的東南沿海地區及島嶼(包括台灣)的居民。中國人的姓氏約有4000年的歷史而且是由男性傳承，所以可以認為代表Y染色體的遺傳，該研究更借著中國的28省加上台灣以ABO、MN及Rh(D) 血型的基因頻率而計算出族群的關係，畫製成的第一度及第二度空間上的族群主要相關圖明顯的把東南沿海地區及台灣的居民(即越族)與其他地區的居民分開。
以上資料顯示南方漢人是緣自南方而有別於北方漢人，「台灣人」是古代越族的後代而保存著古代越族的基因A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02。有關「台灣人」與南方漢人的基因距離的遠近，有待將來的研究，因為現在這研究中所用的南方漢人資料有一半是自福建(參考文獻5)。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
