Hubbry Logo
Plains Indigenous peoplesPlains Indigenous peoplesMain
Open search
Plains Indigenous peoples
Community hub
Plains Indigenous peoples
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Plains Indigenous peoples
Plains Indigenous peoples
from Wikipedia
Plains indigenous siblings in Puli, Nantou[1]

Plains indigenous peoples, also known as Pingpu people (Chinese: 平埔族群; pinyin: Píngpu zúqún; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Pêⁿ-po͘-cho̍k-kûn) and previously as plain aborigines, are Taiwanese indigenous peoples originally residing in lowland regions, as opposed to Highland indigenous peoples. Plains indigenous peoples consist of anywhere from eight to twelve individual groups, or tribes, rather than being a single ethnic group. They are part of the Austronesian family. Beginning in the 17th century, plains indigenous peoples have been heavily influenced by external forces from Dutch, Spanish, and Han Chinese colonization of Taiwan. This ethnic group has since been extensively assimilated with Han Chinese language and culture; they have lost their cultural identity, and it is almost impossible without careful inspection to distinguish plains indigenous peoples from Taiwanese Han people.

1877 sketch of a Plains indigenous person

Plains indigenous peoples are recognized by the Taiwan government as "Pingpu Indigenous People".[2] However, only the Kavalan sub-group has been given full rights and privileges. It was not until the mid-1980s that Plains indigenous peoples started gaining interest from historians and anthropologists, leading to increased public attention to this group. These indigenous groups are currently continuing to fight for their identity, rights, and recognition as Taiwanese indigenous peoples. In 2016, the Tsai Ing-wen administration promised to grant official recognition to the Plains indigenous peoples,[2] and a draft bill is being reviewed by the Legislative Yuan as of June 2018.[3][4]

As of 2012 there were 80,000 people identified as Plains Indigenous people in Taiwan and an estimated 200,000 people are descendants of the Plains Indigenous Peoples.[5]

Background

[edit]
Taiwanese Plains indigenous mother and child

In The Island of Formosa (1903), former US Consul to Formosa James W. Davidson presented the first English-language account of the indigenous peoples of the whole island, which was almost entirely based on the comprehensive work collected over several years of study by Ino Kanori, the foremost authority on the topic at the time.[6] In Ino's eight-group classification, the Pepo, Puyuma, and Amis groups were known as "domesticated savages" (Japanese: 熟番, Hepburn: jukuban), primarily due to their abandonment of ancient customs. Of these three groups, only the Pepo lived in the western plains, where they remained to compete with the Chinese settlers (the Puyuma and Amis inhabited the eastern plains).

The term Pepo (Chinese: 平埔; pinyin: píngpǔ; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: pêⁿ-po͘; lit. 'flat plain') referred to indigenous peoples that resided in the Formosan plains, rather than the highland mountainous regions. Plains indigenous peoples mainly settled in the west and central mountain regions of Taiwan.[7] The term Sek-hoan (熟番; shúfān; se̍k-hoan; 'well-cooked/familiar savages') was also used to describe Plains indigenous peoples because they often lived closer to the coast and had more interaction with Dutch and Han Chinese colonizers, hence were more assimilated and "civilised" than highland indigenous peoples. Mention of Plains indigenous peoples have appeared in Qing texts dating back as early as 1764.[8] In summary, the Pepo were those Plains indigenous peoples who could still be easily distinguished from the Chinese, whereas the Sek-hoan had already thoroughly adopted Chinese customs, thus exhibiting no trace of their "ancient life".[9]

The Dutch, who had ruled Taiwan for 38 years, have left an imprint on the Plains indigenous people. The Sinkang manuscripts, which are bilingual land contracts written in Romanised letters, have become important historical documents for studying the Plains indigenous people. This Romanised tribal language was instructed by the Dutch commissaries in order to teach Christianity. Nevertheless, the Dutch influence on the Plains indigenous people has been limited to language and religion, reaching merely around the Tainan area. Only the influence of the Han Chinese has been far and long-standing.[10]

In the 17th century, Plains indigenous peoples were involved in the flourishing deerskin export market. Plains indigenous hunters often supplied deerskin to the Qing and Dutch regimes, in exchange for cash to trade for other goods and also to pay for taxes enforced under the new regimes.[11] By the 18th century, the deerskin industry had diminished due to overhunting, and the inflow of Chinese immigrants began to take up much of the grazing land.[12] Therefore, Plains indigenous peoples increasingly relied on plow agriculture and land rent from indigenous land reclaimed by Han settlers.

Taiwanese Plains indigenous woman and infant, by John Thomson, 1871.

Han settlers initially implemented policies that favoured Plains indigenous peoples. This was because Han officials feared a revolt against Chinese immigrants, and also because Plains indigenous peoples were tax-paying citizens and could be used as military sources.[13] Furthermore, the Chinese government initially viewed their expansion as a disruption to the indigenous people status quo, hence they introduced policies to favour Plains indigenous peoples. However, Plains indigenous peoples were increasingly not able to compete economically and ethnically with the growing Chinese population that flooded into Taiwan. Han policies in favour of Plains indigenous peoples began to disappear. Han settlers started to remove many of the Plains indigenous peoples from their original villages. It is within these "political and economic frameworks" that the Plains indigenous peoples gradually became sinicized.[12]

In the course of their interaction with the Han Chinese, some Plains indigenous peoples moved to Puli Basin; the Kavalan tribe moved southward to Hualien County and Taitung County; and the Siraya tribe moved to Taitung. However, relocation could not prevent the Plains indigenous peoples from being assimilated. After the Qing Empire had officially taken over Taiwan, the Plains indigenous peoples were rapidly sinicized as a result of advocacy for their "civilising". They were forced to dress in Han clothes, change their names, and receive Han customs.[10]

Plains indigenous peoples began to adopt aspects of Chinese culture, values, and language. Most importantly, intermarriage between Chinese and Plains indigenous peoples increased rapidly, leading to the acculturation of the two groups. Many of the early Chinese settlers in Taiwan were not permitted to bring women with them; hence, they married Plains indigenous women out of necessity.[7] This is the origin of the common saying "there are mainland grandfathers, but no mainland grandmothers" (Chinese: 有唐山公,無唐山媽; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Ū Tn̂g-soaⁿ kong, bô Tn̂g-soaⁿ má).[14][15] This extensive intermarriage is the reason that many Taiwanese people today are unaware that they could be descendants of Plains indigenous peoples. Several theories have been proposed during the 2000s to suggest that a large majority of Hoklo and Hakka Taiwanese could have Plains indigenous lineage in their bloodline.[16] An increasing number of Taiwanese people are starting to search for their Plains indigenous roots and claim their status as Plains indigenous peoples.[17]

Plains Indigenous Peoples Recognition Movement

[edit]
Taivoan women in traditional clothes on the day of the Night Ceremony in Xiaolin community.

After centuries of acculturation, Plains indigenous peoples are almost completely sinicized.[18] It was already noted in the early 20th century that careful observation was required to detect their deeper eyes as compared to the Chinese; also, the women did not practice foot binding.[9] It is now nearly impossible to distinguish Plains indigenous peoples without careful inspection.[19] Through the process of acculturation, much of the language, culture, and identity of Plains indigenous peoples have become nonexistent in modern Taiwanese society.[18] The Republic of China government currently only officially recognises one (Kavalan) of all the Plains indigenous peoples.[20]

Even though there was a lack of attention and interest in the history of Plains indigenous peoples until the mid-1980s, through the works of scholars, folklorists, anthropologists, historians, and remaining descendants of these groups, there has been a gradual restoration of Plains indigenous culture, history, identity, and language.[18] For example, a descendant of Plains indigenous peoples in Hualien, Chieh Wan-lai, still insists on teaching the traditional language and culture of his ethnic group.[19] More educational pamphlets are emerging to teach Taiwanese people about the existence of Plains indigenous peoples. Furthermore, a campaign was started in Yilan County for descendants of the Kavalan to find their roots.[19] Many Plains indigenous ceremonies have been revitalized around Taiwan, and these have been opened up to the public and to people who have recently discovered their status as Plains indigenous peoples.[21]

Ethno-political activities and Nativist Cultural Movements flourished after the 1990s, and a "Plains Aborigine Name Correction Movement" (Plains Indigenous Peoples Recognition Movement) emerged.[19] Several protests occurred in 2001 and 2010, and a formal complaint was sent to the United Nations in 2010, demanding that the ROC government formally recognize Plains indigenous peoples.[22] Descendants of these groups today continue to fight for the official recognition of their status as Taiwanese indigenous peoples.

Through the efforts of indigenous people, Tainan County became the first local government to recognize Siraya people as county-level indigenous people in 2005, followed by the recognition of local Taivoan, Makatao, and Siraya people by the Fuli Township government in 2013. In 2016, the Pingtung County government announced the recognition of local Makatao. Plains indigenous peoples have been allowed to register in Kaohsiung City since 2013 but have not yet been recognized as city-level indigenous peoples. The number of people who have successfully registered, as well as ones to whom the Kaohsiung City government has opened registration but who haven't yet been recognized as of 2017, are as follows:[23][24][25][26]

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

Classification

[edit]
Plains indigenous people in Taipei in 1897

Plains indigenous peoples have been classified under different systems throughout history. The Dutch separated them by regions and differentiated them by communities (社名). Huang Shujing, during Qing rule, categorised all Taiwanese indigenous peoples into thirteen groups, based on geographic location.[8]

It was not until Japanese rule that proper anthropological and ethnographic classification systems of Plains indigenous peoples were formed. The Japanese studies revealed that Plains indigenous peoples were not one culture, but in fact consisted of various ethnicities, languages, and cultures. The Japanese extensively studied Taiwanese indigenous peoples in order to classify, locate, and "civilize" them.

Ethnographer Ino Kanori was the first to create the modern ethnological classification of Plains indigenous peoples, consisting of the following groups: Makattao, Siraya, Loa, Poavasa, Arikun, Vupuran, Pazehhe, and Kuvarawan.[27] Since then, other scholars such as Shigeru Tsuchida, Utsurikawa Nenozo, Mabuchi Toichi, and Ogawa Naoyoshi have presented various classification systems for Plains indigenous peoples.[8] There is still no full consensus over whether there are eight, nine, ten, or twelve groups of Plains indigenous peoples. The major disputes consist of:

  1. Whether Arikun and Lloa should be classified separately or as one ethnic group.
  2. Whether Ketagalan should be further divided into separate groups.
  3. Whether Siraya, Taivoan, and Makattao are separate groups or part of one group. However, based on the latest discovery in linguistics,[28][29] the three ethnic groups should be separate indigenous peoples.
  4. Whether Sao are Plains indigenous or Highland people.
Historical classification of plains indigenous peoples[28][30][31][32]
Year Researcher Name
1904 Ino, Kanori Kavarawan Ketagalan Taokas Vupuran Poavosa Arikun Lloa Pazzehe Makattao Sirajya
1930 Utsurikawa, Nenozo Kavarawan Ketagalan Taokas Vupuran Babuza Hoanya Pazeh Sao Tao Sirajya
1935 Ogawa, Naoyoshi Kavarawan Ketagalan Taokas Vupuran Babuza Hoanya Pazzehe Sao Sirajya
1944 Ogawa, Naoyoshi Kavarawan Luilang Ketagalan Taokas Papora Babuza Hoanya Pazeh Sao Sirajya
1951 張耀錡 Kavalan Ketagalan Taokas Papora Babuza Hoanya Pazeh Siraya Taivoan
1955 李亦園 Kavalan Luilang Ketagalan Taokas Papora Babuza Hoanya Pazeh Thao Siraya
1970 台灣省通志 Kavalan Ketagalan Taokas Papora Babuza Hoanya Pazeh Siraya
Arikun Lloa Makatao Siraya Taivoan
1985–

1991

Tsuchida, Shigeru Kavalan Ketagalan Basay Kulon Taokas Papora Babuza Hoanya Pazzahe Makatao Siraya Taivoan
1991 Li, Paul Jen-kuei Kavalan Ketagalan Babuza Hoanya Pazeh Thao Siraya
Luilang Trobian Basay Taokas Papora Babuza Favorlang Makatao Siraya Taivoan
1996 Li, Paul Jen-kuei Kavalan Qauqaut Ketagalan Kulon Baburan Hoanya Pazeh Thao Siraya
Luilang Trobian Basay Taokas Papora Babuza Favorlang Makatao Siraya Taivoan
2006 Li, Paul Jen-kuei Kavalan Basay (Ketagalan) Kulon Taokas Papora Babuza Hoanya Pazih Thao Makatao Siraya Taivoan

Main peoples

[edit]
Peoples Early settlement locations
1. Ketagalan New Taipei, Keelung, and Taoyuan
2. Kavalan Lanyang Plain
3. Kulon Taoyuan and partial New Taipei City
4. Taokas Hsinchu, Miaoli, and the northern region of Tachia River in Taichung
5. Pazeh Fengyan, Tantzu, Shenkang, and Houli and later spread into Shihkang, Tungshih, and Hsinshe
6. Papora Coastal plains to the south of Tachia River in Taichung
7. Babuza Southern region of Tatu River and the northern region of Choshui River
8. Hoanya Southern region of Wufeng in Taichung and the northern region of Wufeng in Taichung as well as the northern region of Hsinying in Tainan
9. Siraya Tainan and Kaohsiung
10. Taivoan Tainan and Kaohsiung
11. Makatao Kaohsiung and Pingtung

Culture

[edit]

Hunting, fishing, and agriculture

[edit]

Before the arrival of immigrants, Plains indigenous peoples lived a lifestyle based on agriculture, fishing, and hunting.[8] They produced just enough for their needs. Taros and yams were important in their diets. They used simple tools such as sticks and spades for growing food; to hunt, they used traps, spears, and arrows; to fish, they used nets, baskets, and arrows.[33] Men were usually in charge of fishing and hunting, while women were responsible for farming roles. Their hunting targets were mainly deer and wild boars. There were regular seasons for hunting deer and they refrained from hunting young deer to maintain the ecological balance.[8] The Plains indigenous peoples once used extensive land for agriculture and hunting. They solved their disputes by means of betel-nut treats, apologies, or fights. They led a life of self-sufficiency without restriction and suppression from outside regulations or foreign armies. Before the arrival of the Han Chinese, the Plains indigenous peoples only used simple agricultural tools, such as sticks and spades, to plant millet, taro, and yam. Without knowledge of fertiliser, they found new lands to plant when farmed land was exhausted. When the Dutch occupied Taiwan, they taught the Plains indigenous peoples farming skills and administered a policy of breeding farm cattle. They indirectly ruled the indigenous people and managed land cultivation. After their improvement of farming skills, the Plains indigenous peoples changed their staple crop to rice. This happened more obviously to the southern tribes that had earlier contact with foreigners. The northern tribes still mostly planted millet until the early Qing period.[10]

Matriarchal society

[edit]

Plains indigenous peoples were based around a matriarchal society: women were often the head of the family and in charge of important household affairs.[34] Men usually lived with their wives after marriage, serving the wife's family in the form of physical labour. Females inherited property and passed on lineage. Women were usually in charge of religious issues and men were responsible for political issues.[10]

In Plains indigenous traditions, singles were free to choose their spouses. There were special parties where young singles could choose their lovers freely, or they could date individually in private. When a single boy was in love with a girl, he would play his harmonica day and night in front of the girl's house. If the girl also liked the boy, they would have a date, giving each other engagement gifts. As Han culture slowly infiltrated, customs of Plains indigenous peoples transitioned to more typical forms.[10]

Tribal systems

[edit]

Although women had higher status in the clans, in the tribal system men were superior.[34] Tribes were treated as a singular, collective unit. Leaders of the tribes were chosen based on seniority: the oldest member of the tribe became the leader. The elders were responsible for attending community meetings, at which a community chief was chosen to lead. The elders were also responsible for solving internal and external disputes.

The Night Ceremony of Taivoan people in Alikuan, Kaohsiung

Ritual ceremonies

[edit]

Plains indigenous peoples held ritual ceremonies several times a year, to worship natural and ancestral spirits. They strongly believed in the worshiping of ancestors.[8] Whenever a ceremony was held, the people would gather in the political centre of the tribe, called kunghsieh, and they would drink, sing, dance, and celebrate.[35] Their ballads were mostly merry melodies until the mass invasion of the Han Chinese and their culture was on the verge of diminishing, and then they started to create elegies to express the sadness of a disadvantaged people.[10]

During the Qing period, numerous coastal Chinese of the mainland risked their lives to sail to Taiwan for the sake of survival, regardless of the sea prohibition policy of the Qing government. At that time, most Plains indigenous peoples were assimilated. Their villages mingled with villages of the Han Chinese, resulting in land loss. At first, the Han Chinese still paid the land rent, but as they gained more power, they stopped to pay or even bought off the rights. Moreover, the Han Chinese were good at plundering lands from the indigenous people by purchase, alliance, marriage, forced occupation, or exchange of irrigation sources. Sometimes, they even took advantage of the indigenous people's drinking habits and cheated on the contracts. The Plains indigenous peoples thus yielded their living space and scattered elsewhere. Since 1701, the fallow lands and hunting places of the Plains indigenous peoples gradually become the farmlands of the Han Chinese, which caused major changes in their economic life and social system. Those who refused to migrate were slowly assimilated into Han society, and those who relocated could not avoid the oppression from the Han people or other indigenous people and had to move again.[10]

Now, the Plains indigenous peoples are mostly sinicized. They speak fluently the languages of the Han people. The early Han Chinese that came to Taiwan were mostly single males, who usually took aboriginal wives.[10]

Since the 1990s, as the ethno-political activities and the Nativist Cultural Movement have flourished on the island, descendants of the Plains indigenous peoples have also started to demand name correction and joined the Alliance of Taiwan Aboriginal Constitution Movement. Kavalan descendants, such as Chieh Wan-lai, have endeavoured to teach traditional language and culture in Hualien; in 1991, they worked with the Yilan County Government to organise a campaign for the Kavalan to search for their roots, and in 1993, they held a Kavalan Harvest Festival. In addition, the Ketagalan tribe in the north has held several cultural activities in 1994 and 1996. Moreover, the descendants of Siraya, Taokas, and Pazeh have also tried to re-establish and pass on their traditions and cultures.[10]

Geopolitical culture

[edit]

In spite of their considerable cultural and linguistic differences, the Formosan Plains Austronesians shared a common geopolitical culture in the seventeenth century. This culture manifested itself most materially in the physical structure of Formosan villages, which were protected by plant defenses of bamboo or wooden walls. Such defenses could be elaborate. In 1630, for example, inhabitants of the village of Mattau built "a sturdy double wall around their village, the inside filled with clay, as well as a moat and many demi-lunes."[36]

Surnames

[edit]

Surnames were an integral part of Plains indigenous culture. Through the process of acculturation, Plains indigenous peoples gave up their naming systems and original surnames in favour of adopting Chinese surnames. In the process, several unique surnames were created in conjunction with indigenous influences; these differed from Hoklo and Hakka surnames.[citation needed]

Some of the unique surnames include 月, 邦, 宜, 機, 翼, 力, 卯, 茆, 同, 念, 東, 岩, 哀, 曷, 埕, 買, 猴, 標, 紅, 雙, 角, 楓, 詩, 樟, 墜, 雛, 乃, 味, 毒, 陣, 盂, 解, 棹, 永, 湖, 振, 偕, 嘪, 掌, 奚, 詠, 倚, 竭, 北, 六, 水, 麗, 崗, 崑, 桌, 牙, 陀, 秘, 烏, 新, 糠, 長, 萇, and 霜.[citation needed]

Recent developments

[edit]

Complaint to the United Nations

[edit]

In 2010, representatives of Plains indigenous peoples in Taiwan sent an official complaint to the United Nations in Geneva; the complaint outlined the unfairness caused by Plains indigenous peoples not being formally recognised under the current Republic of China administration.[22] The representatives of the complainants demanded for the groups to be recognised formally as Taiwanese Indigenous People and Austronesian. The complaint was rejected by the United Nations.[22] As a result, a dedicated committee under the name "Pingpu Affairs Task Force" (平埔族群事務推動小組) has been created by the Executive Yuan to deal with Plains indigenous issues.[22]

Plains indigenous genetic studies

[edit]

Genetic studies conducted by Marie Lin [zh] of Mackay Memorial Hospital in 2001, 2008, and 2010 concluded that despite only 1.5 percent of Taiwanese people being registered as indigenous, there is a strong possibility that over 85% of Taiwanese have Plains indigenous bloodlines.[37] Lin's research was based on the study of human tissue antigens (HLA) of Hoklo, Hakka, and Plains indigenous peoples. It was claimed that through hundreds of years of assimilation and intermarriage between Han Chinese and Plains indigenous peoples, there was a high possibility that genetically, the Hoklo and Hakka bloodlines in Taiwan have been fused with Plains indigenous bloodlines.

Not long after Lin's 2008 publication, several academics pointed out errors in Lin's statistical analysis, and questioned why some of her numbers contradict each another. Subsequent full genome studies using large sample sizes and comparing thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms have come to the conclusion that Taiwanese Han people are primarily of mainland Chinese descent and have only very limited genetic mixture with the indigenous population.[38][39] Thereafter, Lin herself coauthored a paper with similar conclusions.[40]

Nevertheless, Lin's research has been continuously used by many Taiwanese independence activists to build a Taiwanese identity based on ethnicity. Activists have used Lin's findings to argue the view that the majority of Taiwanese who did not descend from migrants from the Chinese Civil War are not descendants of Han Chinese but rather descendants of Plains indigenous peoples; and therefore Taiwan should not be considered as part of a Chinese state.[41] However, this position has faced political strain. Taiwanese Plains indigenous people who have suffered racial and cultural assimilation often despise these so-called "blood nationalists", whom they view as pushing a political agenda by claiming indigenous status.[42]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
The Plains Indigenous peoples of , known as Pingpu or plains aborigines, are Austronesian ethnic groups that historically occupied the island's lowlands, coastal plains, and river valleys, practicing sedentary , , and prior to widespread settlement. Distinguished from highland tribes by their accessible , they included subgroups such as the Siraya, Basay, Ketagalan, Taokas, Pazeh, Hoanya, Babuza, Papora, and Arikun, with populations estimated in the tens of thousands before European contact. Their societies featured village-based communities with longhouses, matrilineal elements in some groups like the Siraya, and rituals centered on ancestor veneration and harvest cycles. Early interactions with Dutch (1624–1662) and Spanish colonizers introduced trade, , and literacy in Romanized , particularly among the Siraya, who supplied deer products and adopted en masse, facilitating partial cultural preservation through written records. Subsequent Han immigration during the (1683–1895) exerted demographic and economic pressures, prompting land cessions, intermarriages, and sinicization, as settlers cleared forests for rice paddies and outnumbered indigenous populations, leading to the effective assimilation of most Pingpu into Han society by the early . This process was driven by voluntary economic integration, coercive land policies, and the adaptive advantages of Han agricultural techniques and population growth, rather than solely violent displacement. In modern , Pingpu descendants number around 200,000 but lack official indigenous status, unlike the 16 recognized highland-dominated tribes, sparking revival movements focused on language reconstruction from colonial texts, cultural reclamation, and legal recognition amid controversies over ancestral purity and potential land rights claims. These efforts highlight tensions between historical assimilation—often viewed through lenses of cultural loss in activist narratives—and of hybrid identities formed through pragmatic adaptations to colonizing pressures.

Overview and Definition

Historical Context and Terminology

The Plains Indigenous Peoples, also known as Pingpu, comprise the pre-Han Chinese aboriginal populations that historically occupied plains along Taiwan's western and southwestern coasts. These groups trace their ancestry to Austronesian-speaking migrants who arrived in successive waves beginning approximately 5,000 to 6,000 years ago, establishing settlements across the island. Genetic and linguistic evidence links them to the broader Austronesian family, with serving as a key dispersal point for subsequent Pacific migrations. Terminology for these peoples evolved through colonial interactions, with "Pingpu" (meaning "plains tribes") emerging as a collective descriptor to differentiate them from highland groups based on rather than strict ethnic boundaries. Dutch colonial records from the 17th century, such as those documenting interactions in southern , identify specific tribal affiliations like Siraya and Hoanya, while administrative texts from the 18th and 19th centuries catalog approximately 10 to 12 major plains groupings through censuses and systems. These sources often employed Sinocentric terms like "shengfan" (raw barbarians) for unsubdued indigenous communities, reflecting administrative rather than indigenous self-identification. The distinction between Plains and mountain indigenous peoples—such as the Amis or Atayal—stems primarily from topographic separation, with plains locations enabling earlier and more direct exposure to settlement and trade from the 1600s onward. This geographic accessibility contrasted with the relative isolation of upland territories, shaping divergent patterns of cultural interaction and documentation in historical accounts.

Current Demographic Estimates

Estimates of the population self-identifying as (also known as Pingpu) in vary due to the absence of official recognition by the of Indigenous Peoples, which maintains separate tallies only for the 16 recognized tribes totaling approximately 611,674 individuals as of 2024. Without dedicated categories, requirements, or linguistic proficiency criteria, demographic data depend on self-reported ancestry in household registrations or activist surveys, fostering debates over inflation from intermarriage or undercounting from assimilation. Pingpu groups contend that 200,000 to 260,000 people actively claim Plains descent, though potential broader descendants—eligible for recognition if granted—could number up to 980,000 according to projections, potentially elevating the overall indigenous proportion from 2.6% to around 6% of 's populace. Unlike mountain indigenous groups, Plains peoples lack autonomous reserved territories and are largely urbanized in Han Chinese-dominated lowland regions, correlating with elevated socioeconomic metrics such as and income relative to recognized tribes, yet they pursue identity verification for access to indigenous-specific subsidies and cultural protections. This integration stems from centuries of intermarriage and , complicating precise enumeration as many descendants prioritize Han identity in official records absent formal incentives.

Historical Development

Pre-Colonial Settlement and Lifestyle

The Plains Indigenous peoples, inhabiting 's western lowlands prior to European contact in the , established semi-permanent riverine settlements adapted to the fertile alluvial plains and coastal environments. Archaeological evidence from the late Tapenkeng (TPK) culture, dated approximately 2800–2200 BCE in southern , reveals extensive village settlements characterized by clustered dwellings supported by , , and . These sites, such as those in southwestern , indicate populations of several hundred per village, with structures built from wood and thatch, positioned near rivers for access to water and transport. Subsistence relied on swidden focused on millet and cultivation, supplemented by protein from and riverine . Foxtail and broomcorn millet were domesticated and farmed as early as 5000 years ago in southern , with carbonized remains confirming their role as staple crops alongside in layers. Sites like Sanbaopi in southwestern , dating to around 3000–2000 BCE, yield archaeobotanical evidence of intensive and production, reflecting slash-and-burn techniques suited to the plains' loamy soils and seasonal flooding, which contrasted with the foraging-heavy adaptations of highland groups. Hunting targeted species such as and , evidenced by faunal remains in deposits, while exploited estuarine resources with nets and traps. Social organization consisted of small-scale, kin-based chiefdoms or village clusters, lacking hierarchical complexity or monumental architecture indicative of empires. Villages operated as autonomous units with coordinating labor for farming and defense, connected by regional networks exchanging marine shells, stone tools, and deer products across coastal and inland zones. This decentralized structure, inferred from settlement densities and artifact distributions rather than written records, emphasized egalitarian resource sharing within extended families, with no archaeological signs of centralized authority or large-scale warfare prior to external influences.

European Contact (17th Century)

The (VOC) established its first permanent settlement in southwestern at Fort Zeelandia (near present-day ) in , initiating sustained contact with Plains Indigenous groups, particularly the Siraya confederation. These alliances were pragmatic and trade-oriented, with the Siraya providing labor for and supplying deerskins, horns, and —key exports for the VOC—in exchange for iron tools, cloth, and rice. Dutch records indicate that Siraya hunters were organized into licensed groups to meet export demands, fostering economic interdependence while introducing European goods that supplemented traditional subsistence. In northern Taiwan, the Spanish established garrisons at () and (Tamsui) from 1626 to 1642, engaging with local Plains and hill groups such as the Kavalan and Basay through initial trade and missionary efforts, though interactions were more limited and fortified due to geographic isolation. Competition between the Dutch and Spanish led to military skirmishes, including Dutch attacks on Spanish outposts in 1642, which expelled the Spanish and consolidated Dutch influence across much of the island's western plains. These footholds marked the first systematic European documentation of Plains societies, with VOC administrators noting matrilineal kinship, duolocal residence, and animistic practices among the Siraya. Early missionary work, led by Georgius Candidius from 1627, produced the first written records of a Plains —Siraya—through catechisms and vocabularies compiled for conversion efforts, offering invaluable baselines for later linguistic studies despite limited long-term success in baptisms. The introduction of firearms via Dutch trade altered inter-tribal dynamics, as Plains groups like the Siraya acquired muskets and adapted them for raids, intensifying conflicts with upland tribes and shifting power balances toward those with European access. Epidemics, including introduced through maritime contacts, contributed to localized population declines in Dutch-influenced areas, though quantitative estimates vary and are compounded by warfare and migration disruptions.

Qing Dynasty Interactions and Expansion

The annexed in after defeating the Ming loyalist , establishing administrative control primarily over the western plains while imposing initial restrictions on Han migration to avert rebellions and preserve indigenous territories. These limits, enforced through quotas and bans until the mid-18th century, aimed to balance settlement with stability, yet economic pressures in province spurred unauthorized inflows, with migrants focusing on reclaiming alluvial plains for farming. By the reign of Emperor Jiaqing (1796–1820), cumulative Han immigration reached nearly two million, concentrating in southwestern and central regions like and , where settlers cleared mangroves and built irrigation systems to expand arable land from under 10% to over 20% of the island's surface by 1895. Economic interactions between Han settlers and plains indigenous groups emphasized mutual incentives, including labor exchanges and in deerskins, , and tools. Tribes such as the Babuza in central contributed workforce to Han-led projects, notably the 1709 Babao Irrigation Canal in , which converted flood-prone areas into productive fields and positioned the region as Taiwan's agricultural hub by enabling double-cropping yields of up to 2,000 catties per jia (about 0.97 hectares). Voluntary integrations occurred via intermarriages, which Qing records document as facilitating alliances; for instance, Han men often wed indigenous women, integrating lineages into settler communities while providing brides access to Han markets and iron implements. Such ties promoted adoption of wet- techniques among groups like the Siraya and Babuza, shifting from slash-and-burn millet farming to intensive paddy systems that boosted output but required communal labor coordination. Conflicts punctuated expansion, with indigenous resistances met by Qing suppression to secure frontiers, though many groups acquiesced for trade privileges. The 1721 Zhu Yigui uprising, involving Han peasants but spilling into indigenous alliances against taxation, ended in Qing victory and prompted erection of stone boundary markers delineating Han plains from upland territories, reducing direct clashes while formalizing tribute systems. Plains tribes, facing land pressures, often submitted via headman oaths or informal pacts—Qing archives note over 50 such agreements by 1750—exchanging deer products and labor for salt, cloth, and military aid against rivals, as seen in Siraya capitulations post-1720s skirmishes. These dynamics reflected pragmatic incentives over coercion alone, with suppressed revolts like localized Siraya unrest yielding to economic incorporation rather than eradication. Sinicization progressed through cultural diffusion, with plains groups adopting Han plow technologies, Confucian norms, and queue hairstyles by the mid-18th century, eroding distinct identities amid demographic shifts. Pre-Qing estimates placed plains indigenous at around 100,000, comparable to early Han arrivals, but by 1780, Han numbers swelled to 800,000 against 40,000 remaining plains natives, attributable to assimilation via (producing mixed "civilized" lineages), epidemics like , and displacement to margins. This voluntary and coerced blending marginalized autonomous tribes, reclassifying many as "Han-of-Formosa" in censuses by 1895, though Qing policies preserved some in exchange for loyalty.

Japanese Rule (1895–1945)

Following the on April 17, 1895, acquired from the , initiating a period of colonial administration that emphasized modernization and assimilation. For the Plains Indigenous peoples, already substantially integrated with settlers through prior intermarriage and cultural exchange, Japanese policies shifted focus from outright pacification—more aggressively applied to highland groups—to economic incorporation and cultural . The administration conducted comprehensive land and population surveys starting in 1898, registering properties and facilitating the expansion of cash crops like , which displaced some residual Plains communities from communal lands in western Taiwan's fertile plains. Japanese ethnographers, notably Inō Kanori, undertook extensive surveys documenting Plains Indigenous customs, geographies, and between 1896 and the 1920s, identifying at least nine distinct Plains languages—such as Siraya, Hoanya, and Babuza—many of which became extinct by the mid-20th century due to suppression of use in favor of Japanese. These , compiled in publications like Inō's multi-volume ethnographies, preserved linguistic and cultural data otherwise lost to assimilation, though primarily serving colonial administrative goals like mapping "savage" territories. Concurrently, land reallocations supported sugar industry growth; by the , Japanese firms controlled vast tracts via contracts with local farmers, converting former Plains hunting and farming grounds into fields, which eroded traditional subsistence patterns while providing wage labor opportunities that accelerated among survivors. Education reforms introduced compulsory schooling in Japanese from 1898 onward, enrolling Plains descendants in systems that prioritized imperial loyalty over indigenous heritage, leading to widespread adoption of Japanese names and customs by the 1930s kominka (imperialization) campaign. Resistance among Plains groups remained minimal compared to highland uprisings, with no major revolts recorded; instead, adaptation manifested through into Japanese forces during , where over 2,000 Taiwanese indigenous soldiers—many of Plains descent—served, further blurring ethnic distinctions via military service and postwar dispersal. This era's infrastructure developments, including railroads and irrigation for plantations, yielded economic gains but hastened the demographic and cultural dilution of Plains identities, reducing self-identified Plains populations to scattered remnants by 1945.

Post-1945 Republican Era

Following the Republic of China's assumption of control over in 1945 after Japanese rule, the (KMT) government continued and intensified assimilation policies toward Plains Indigenous peoples, emphasizing national unification under a Sinocentric framework that subsumed their distinct identities into broader Han categories. Plains groups, already heavily intermarried and culturally integrated from prior eras, were systematically classified in official censuses as Hoklo (Minnan) or Hakka subgroups rather than as indigenous entities, denying them separate ethnic recognition and access to targeted protections. This approach aligned with the KMT's broader strategy of forging a unified Chinese identity amid civil war displacement from the mainland, effectively erasing Plains-specific activism or claims to autonomy. The imposition of from 1949 to 1987 further entrenched suppression of ethnic expressions, with any Plains-related identity assertions viewed as potential threats to state stability and quashed through surveillance, censorship, and coercive integration measures. During this period, known as the White Terror, indigenous-linked dissent—including subtle efforts to preserve Plains heritage—was conflated with anti-regime agitation, leading to arrests and cultural effacement policies that prioritized Mandarin education and Han-centric nationalism. The KMT's artificial assimilation doctrine explicitly aimed at the "complete effacement" of indigenous distinctions, including those of Plains descendants, to consolidate loyalty in a militarized society. Taiwan's rapid industrialization from the onward, part of the "" economic boom, accelerated urban migration among Plains descendants, who increasingly relocated to cities like and for factory and service jobs, diluting remaining community ties and fostering hybrid Sino-indigenous identities. By the , this shift had contributed to the near-total loss of Plains languages as mother tongues, with linguistic surveys confirming no fluent native speakers remained, as intergenerational transmission ceased under Mandarin-dominant schooling and economic pressures. These developments reinforced assimilation continuity, transforming Plains peoples into an unrecognized, dispersed population integrated into the Han majority's socioeconomic fabric.

Ethnic Classification

Major Historical Tribes

The Siraya constituted the largest historical Plains Indigenous group, occupying the southwestern coastal plains of , particularly around modern , with four major communities documented in 1655 comprising about one-third of the total Pingpu population. Their settlements featured stilt houses adapted to flood-prone lowlands, and they maintained as a key subsistence activity alongside millet cultivation. The Siraya language became extinct by the late amid Han assimilation and intermarriage. The Hoanya inhabited central western , spanning areas now in , , and Nantou counties, where they practiced wet-rice farming introduced via early trade contacts. Facing Han encroachment in the early , Hoanya communities migrated eastward over the alongside allied groups during the 1820s and 1830s. Their language fell into disuse by the early , with surviving speakers assimilating into Hoklo-speaking societies. The Babuza occupied north-central plains, centered in and the western Central Basin, known for coastal fishing and alliances with neighboring Papora and Taokas subgroups. Like other Plains tribes, Babuza engaged in inter-tribal marriages that facilitated community mergers under pressure from Qing-era Han expansion, contributing to cultural blending by the mid-19th century. Their dialects, including the extinct Taokas variant, ceased transmission around 1900. Groups like the Kavalan on Taiwan's eastern fringe exhibited semi-Plains adaptations, blending lowland agriculture with highland foraging, though their core territories bordered mountainous regions. Across these tribes, practices such as facial tattooing—used for rites of passage and status—declined by the late due to missionary influences and Han integration policies. Inter-tribal relations often involved temporary alliances against highland raids or Han incursions, but frequent exogamous marriages accelerated assimilation and group dissolution by the 1800s.

Linguistic and Cultural Groupings

The Plains Indigenous peoples of Taiwan primarily spoke languages classified within the Western Formosan subgroup of the Austronesian language family, distinct from the Eastern Formosan languages associated with highland tribes. This Western branch encompasses approximately 10 documented languages, including those of the Sirayaic subgroup—Siraya, Taivoan, and Makatao—as well as Hoanya, Babuza, Papora, Taokas, Ketagalan, and Basay, all confined to the lowlands and southwestern coastal plains. These languages, characterized by unique phonological inventories such as retained Proto-Austronesian *z and *C initial consonants, reflect adaptations to the island's linguistic diversity but have been extinct since the late 19th to early 20th centuries, with surviving data limited to colonial-era vocabularies and grammars. Cultural groupings among Plains peoples aligned loosely with these linguistic divisions, forming areal clusters differentiated by environmental adaptations: coastal variants, such as Siraya and Hoanya, emphasized and trade-influenced , while inland groups like Babuza showed greater reliance on millet cultivation and hinterland mobility. Variations in styles—coastal wares often featuring shell tempering for durability in humid conditions versus inland cord-marked ceramics—along with terminologies favoring to accommodate fluid agrarian alliances, underscore these clusters' empirical distinctiveness from montane Austronesian groups. Such traits highlight a pre-assimilation diversity now largely irrecoverable, as linguistic eroded shared cultural markers. Comparatively, Plains Formosan languages share Proto-Austronesian roots with Philippine Austronesian tongues, evidenced by vocabulary for basic subsistence terms like millet (*zəRay) and (*waRəy), but diverged through Taiwan-specific innovations, including substrate influences from pre-Austronesian substrates and phonological shifts suited to plains acoustics and . This basal positioning in Austronesian phylogeny positions Plains languages as key to reconstructing ancestral forms, yet their has obscured unique lexical domains tied to localized and social structures.

Traditional Culture and Society

Subsistence Economy

The Plains Indigenous peoples maintained a mixed subsistence economy centered on agriculture, hunting, and fishing, adapted to the fertile western plains and riverine environments of Taiwan prior to widespread colonial influences. Agriculture formed the foundation, employing shifting cultivation techniques to grow staple crops such as foxtail millet (Setaria italica), taro (Colocasia esculenta), and yams, which were planted using wooden digging sticks and cleared with rectangular stone adzes hewn from basalt or slate. These methods yielded sufficient caloric returns for small-scale settlements but were constrained by the absence of draft animals, plows, or fertilizers, limiting field permanence and productivity to seasonal rotations on alluvial soils. Hunting supplemented agricultural output, targeting (Cervus nippon taiouanus) and with bows, arrows, and traps, yielding meat for consumption and hides for preservation or exchange. Deer products, including , skins, and horns, were key to early networks, bartered with Dutch traders from the 1620s onward for iron knives, axes, and cloth, integrating Plains groups into regional export circuits that shipped over 151,400 hides to by 1638. This commercial incentive, however, strained local deer populations, as intensified harvests outpaced natural replenishment rates, foreshadowing ecological imbalances evident in declining yields by the mid-17th century. Fishing in coastal estuaries and inland rivers provided protein via weirs, nets, and hooks, though it constituted a minor component relative to terrestrial pursuits, with archaeological of net sinkers and bone tools from sites indicating opportunistic rather than intensive exploitation. Overall, the economy's hinged on low human densities and rotational resource use, yet its reliance on rendered it susceptible to when external demands amplified pressures.

Social Organization and Kinship Systems

Plains Indigenous peoples organized socially around autonomous villages, each typically housing 100 to 500 individuals under the leadership of a non-hereditary headman, often a prominent male figure selected through consensus among elders rather than monarchical succession. These managed inter-village alliances, defense against raids, and communal labor, such as collective wall-building for protection, as documented in early 17th-century interactions around villages like Mattau and Sinkan. Village councils, comprising elders, advised on and resource decisions, reflecting a decentralized governance without centralized chieftaincies spanning multiple settlements. Kinship systems among Plains groups displayed bilateral characteristics, with of distributed equitably among sons and daughters, diverging from the matrilineal descent traced through females in certain eastern Taiwanese indigenous societies. In the Kavalan, a representative Plains , ego-centered kindred networks extended bilaterally to second- or third-degree relatives, emphasizing shared descent obligations like ancestor veneration over unilineal lines, while prohibiting exogamous marriages within close kin to maintain alliances. units, spanning 2–3 generations, operated on co-residence and economic , with post-marital residence flexibly virilocal or uxorilocal before shifting toward patrilocal patterns under external influences. Assertions of overarching matriarchal dominance, occasionally advanced in modern narratives, find limited empirical support in primary records, which highlight male and warriors as primary actors in and conflict. Dutch-era accounts from the 1620s–1630s portray men mobilizing for expeditions and raids—such as Mattau's deployment of approximately 500 warriors—while women featured in ties but not as political or leads. roles permitted flexibility in daily tasks, yet warfare and remained male spheres, underscoring patrilineal tendencies in authority despite bilateral . For the Siraya subgroup, male age-sets structured social hierarchies, reinforcing non-matriarchal organization. Conflict resolution relied on elder councils for and ritual compensation, but persistent inter-village feuds often escalated into revenge cycles, including to restore honor, as seen in Sinkan's capture of 26 enemy heads in 1635. These mechanisms prioritized communal consensus over formal hierarchies, adapting to shifting alliances amid territorial disputes.

Spiritual Beliefs and Ceremonies

The spiritual beliefs of Plains Indigenous peoples, such as the Siraya, Basay, and Kavalan, centered on , encompassing veneration of ancestral spirits and nature entities believed to influence daily survival, including and . Ancestors were regarded as protective forces requiring regular through offerings to ensure and avert misfortune, with no evidence of a singular supreme deity but rather a pantheon of localized spirits tied to and environment. Dutch colonial records from the document Siraya practices involving rituals to appease both benevolent and malevolent spirits associated with the , reflecting a dualistic cosmology where the mirrored earthly social structures without formalized universal doctrines. Ceremonies were pragmatic, oriented toward practical outcomes like bountiful harvests or successful hunts, often led by shamans or priests who mediated between humans and spirits via oral invocations and sacrifices. Animal offerings, including pigs and deer, featured prominently in rites for , with blood and meat distributed communally to symbolize reciprocity with spirits; for instance, Siraya arit rituals involved pig sacrifices to ancestral collectives like Alid for communal welfare. Harvest festivals celebrated millet yields— a staple —with communal feasting and (mijiu) poured as libations to ancestors, reinforcing social bonds and fertility cycles, though these lacked elaborate written mythologies and emphasized immediate empirical needs over abstract theology. Healing practices relied on shamanic intervention, where practitioners, often women, invoked spirits to diagnose and cure ailments through trance-induced rituals, applications, and taboos, as seen in Kavalan metiyu priestess ceremonies addressing communal issues like outbreaks among . Variations existed across groups: Siraya emphasized ancestral duality and navigation in rites, contrasting with mountain tribes' more hierarchical featuring creator figures, while plains practices integrated survivalist without extensive totemism. These oral traditions persisted in fragmented form despite assimilation pressures, underscoring a causal focus on spirit-human exchange for tangible ecological balance.

Assimilation Processes

Mechanisms of Cultural Integration

The demographic dominance of Han Chinese migrants, who numbered approximately 100,000 alongside comparable Plains Indigenous populations by the early 1700s, created adaptive incentives for cultural borrowing as indigenous groups sought economic opportunities and protection amid expanding settler frontiers. Han settlers offered access to broader markets for indigenous deer hides, venison, and subsistence crops, prompting voluntary adoption of wet-rice agriculture and trade alliances that integrated Plains communities into Chinese economic networks by the mid-18th century. Intermarriage further facilitated this, as Plains women incorporated Han practices into household economies, leveraging the settlers' numerical superiority—reaching over 800,000 Han by 1780 against roughly 40,000 Plains indigenous—for security against inter-tribal conflicts and banditry. Qing policies of administrative "taming" reinforced these incentives by granting "shufan" (cooked barbarian) status to Plains leaders who paid taxes and , integrating them into the fiscal system and providing legal protections unavailable to unassimilated "shengfan" (raw barbarians). This approach, formalized after , rewarded indigenous elites with bureaucratic roles and exemptions from restrictions, encouraging them to adopt Han governance models as a pragmatic response to the dynasty's technological and organizational advantages in taxation and organization. By the Qianlong era (1735–1796), such policies had sinicized most Plains groups through leader-led adaptation, where taxation served as both a control mechanism and an entry to Han social hierarchies. Cultural integration deepened via the imposition of Confucian frameworks over animistic traditions, accelerated by Qing-established schools in Plains territories from the onward, which taught Han literacy and to foster loyalty and administrative utility. These institutions overlaid hierarchical ideals on indigenous clan structures, enabling Plains peoples to navigate Han-dominated and , as the empirical efficiency of Confucian in managing large-scale proved superior to decentralized tribal systems. This emerged not merely from but from causal recognition of Han advantages in scalable , with indigenous adaptations preserving core spiritual elements while prioritizing survival in a transformed .

Linguistic Extinction and Revival Attempts

The languages of the Plains Indigenous peoples (Pingpu) underwent rapid decline following sustained contact with Han Chinese settlers during the Qing dynasty, with widespread language shift to Hokkien (Taiwanese Minnan) by the 19th century, as intermarriage and economic integration eroded native fluency. This process involved pidginized forms of communication in early trade and labor contexts, where indigenous vocabulary blended into Hokkien substrates, but full transmission to subsequent generations ceased amid coercive assimilation policies favoring Han surnames such as Lin and Chen. By the mid-20th century, most Pingpu languages were extinct or moribund, with the last fluent speakers of groups like the Siraya dying around 1908 and Pazeh's final native speaker passing in 2010. Japanese colonial authorities (1895–1945) conducted systematic linguistic surveys, producing grammars, vocabularies, and phonetic records of surviving Formosan dialects, including Plains variants, which now facilitate partial reconstructions despite incomplete data from pre-extinction informants. These efforts, motivated by administrative classification rather than preservation, preserved fragments such as Siraya word lists, though biases in transcription limited accuracy for tonal and syntactic features. Revival initiatives emerged in the amid and Pingpu identity movements, with associations like the Pingpu Siraya Cultural Association developing curricula from reconstructed texts for school programs and cultural festivals, primarily to bolster claims for official recognition. However, these politically driven efforts have yielded minimal organic viability, with fewer than 100 semi-fluent participants per group—often limited to rote phrases rather than conversational proficiency—and no intergenerational transmission outside advocacy contexts. Critics note that such revivals prioritize symbolic identity over empirical linguistic recovery, as absent native speaker models hinder authentic grammar acquisition, rendering them more performative than sustainable.

Demographic and Genetic Admixture

Historical records from the indicate that intermarriage between settlers and Plains Indigenous peoples accelerated during the 18th and 19th centuries, often motivated by economic advantages such as improved access to , trade networks, and social stability for Indigenous women marrying Han men. This process was particularly prevalent in the western plains, where Han immigration surged, leading to the formation of mixed communities. Administrative documents and contemporary accounts describe these unions as largely voluntary, with Plains women integrating into Han households while contributing agricultural knowledge and kinship ties. The demographic impact was profound, with the distinct Plains Indigenous population experiencing a sharp decline—estimated at over 90% from pre-colonial levels—primarily through absorption into the growing Hoklo Han majority rather than outright depopulation. By the late , Qing censuses and settler reports showed that Plains groups had halved in identifiable numbers before blending seamlessly into Han society, forming a hybrid demographic base. This admixture reduced visible tribal distinctions, as mixed descendants adopted Han surnames, customs, and patrilineal structures. Such genetic and cultural hybridization has been linked to enhanced adaptive resilience among Taiwanese populations, where Plains-Han mixed heritage facilitated by bridging indigenous resourcefulness with Han entrepreneurial networks in post-Qing economic shifts. Descendants of these unions, predominant in southern and central Taiwan's Hoklo communities, leveraged dual identities for integration into modern society without the isolation faced by unassimilated groups. This successful blending underscores a pragmatic fusion that bolstered overall societal robustness amid colonial transitions.

Modern Recognition Efforts

Advocacy Movements Since the 1980s

The lifting of martial law in 1987 catalyzed advocacy among Plains Indigenous peoples, who had undergone extensive Sinicization since the 17th century, enabling demands for ethnic recognition amid broader democratization. Early efforts focused on "name rectification" (正名), a campaign to restore suppressed indigenous surnames and identities, drawing from precedents in highland tribes but adapted to Plains groups' assimilated status. The Siraya, a prominent Plains group, spearheaded petitions for official status, emphasizing historical lands in southwestern Taiwan and cultural symbols like reconstructed rituals, though empirical evidence of continuous distinctiveness was contested due to linguistic extinction and intermarriage. By the mid-1990s, Plains advocates joined alliances such as the Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines' extensions, pushing for inclusion in indigenous frameworks, yet were systematically excluded from the 16 officially recognized tribes formalized around constitutional amendments in 1994, which privileged highland groups with verifiable ongoing traditions. The County Pingpu Siraya Cultural Association, formed in 1999, marked a milestone in grassroots organization, promoting language reconstruction from Dutch-era texts and public ceremonies to assert continuity despite centuries of cultural dilution. These initiatives achieved heightened visibility through media and academic interest, fostering events like Siraya ancestral pathway restorations by the early . Advocacy revealed tensions between urban elites, often intellectuals leveraging global discourse for revival projects, and rural descendants skeptical of benefits, given high rates of and into Han society. Critics, including some anthropologists, highlighted retroactive identity , noting that Plains claims frequently invoked dormant 17th-18th century rather than living practices, potentially driven by access to affirmative policies rather than causal ethnic persistence. Empirical studies underscore this, with Plains populations numbering over 300,000 self-identifiers by the 2010s but minimal linguistic retention, raising questions about authenticity versus political mobilization. Despite achievements in cultural documentation, such as Siraya revivals, movements faced internal debates over whether revival efforts genuinely countered assimilation or amplified elite narratives over rural pragmatism.

Governmental Responses and Policies

The Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) in maintains recognition criteria that emphasize the preservation of distinct indigenous languages and cultures as prerequisites for official status, leading to the exclusion of Plains Indigenous groups, collectively known as Pingpu , who are deemed to have undergone extensive through centuries of interaction with settlers and colonial administrations. This policy stance prioritizes empirical evidence of cultural continuity, such as active language use and traditional practices, over historical claims alone; Plains groups like the Siraya, Babuza, and Hoanya lack surviving indigenous languages, with most speakers extinct by the early due to assimilation pressures under Dutch, Qing, and Japanese rule. As a result, the 10 Plains subgroups remain unrecognized, ineligible for reserved legislative seats, land rights under the , or dedicated welfare allocations reserved for the 16 officially acknowledged mountain and offshore tribes. In the 2010s, the government extended limited partial concessions to Plains communities, primarily through cultural preservation grants administered by the CIP and , funding initiatives like heritage documentation and revival workshops without conferring formal indigenous status or resource entitlements. These measures, totaling approximately NT$10-20 million annually by mid-decade for Plains-specific projects, supported ethnographic studies and community events but explicitly avoided political recognition, reflecting a pragmatic assessment that full status would dilute protections for less-assimilated groups. No land restitutions or electoral quotas were granted, maintaining the exclusion from the 6 indigenous legislative seats allocated since 2008, which are reserved for mountain tribes based on population registries excluding Plains descendants. Critics argue that this differential treatment exacerbates inequities, as tribes receive targeted subsidies—such as NT$50 billion in annual indigenous welfare budgets disproportionately favoring remote areas—while Plains descendants, often urbanized and integrated into low-wage Han economies, face higher rates in some metrics without equivalent access. from 2019 household surveys indicate Plains-identifying households average 15-20% lower incomes than the national median, comparable to or exceeding mountain tribe disparities in urban migration contexts, yet policies overlook them due to acculturation benchmarks rather than need-based assessments. This approach, grounded in causal evidence of assimilation reducing distinct vulnerabilities, has been defended by CIP officials as preventing resource dilution but draws scrutiny for perpetuating exclusionary precedents established under post-1945 Nationalist classifications that reclassified Plains peoples as "plain-area" rather than indigenous.

International Appeals and 2025 Recognition Act

Advocacy for the recognition of Taiwan's Plains Indigenous peoples, also known as Pingpu, has included international reporting by organizations such as the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), which has highlighted their historical assimilation and exclusion from official status alongside the 16 recognized mountain and plains tribes. These efforts have involved petitions and awareness campaigns framing past assimilation policies—such as language suppression and intermarriage under Dutch, Qing, and Japanese rule—as cultural erasure, with some activists invoking terms like "cultural " in broader discourse. However, such characterizations lack empirical evidence of systematic intent to destroy the groups as defined under the UN , and no formal UN investigations or rulings have addressed Plains peoples specifically, distinguishing their case from more documented indigenous plights elsewhere. The pivotal domestic legislative response came with the Plains Indigenous Peoples Status Act, approved by Taiwan's in draft form on May 15, 2025, and passed by the on October 18, 2025. This act establishes a process for Pingpu groups to apply for official indigenous recognition, potentially extending status to up to 10 historically distinct tribes previously denied due to their greater degree of assimilation into society. The Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) has committed to implementing the law in line with prior interpretations emphasizing cultural continuity criteria, though applications will undergo rigorous review to verify lineage and traditions. Critics, including some recognized indigenous leaders, argue the act risks diluting indigeneity standards by prioritizing self-identification over verifiable cultural markers, potentially granting access to benefits like reserved legislative seats and land rights without substantive revival of endangered languages or customs, which have largely vanished among Plains groups. This could strain limited resources allocated for indigenous affairs, amid ongoing debates over and the political motivations behind expanded recognition under the ruling coalition. Proponents counter that the measure affirms historical injustices and promotes equity, aligning with global norms without binding international mandates.

Scientific Studies

Archaeological Evidence

Archaeological investigations in Taiwan's western plains have uncovered evidence of continuous human occupation dating back to the period, with sites demonstrating agricultural practices and linked to the ancestors of Plains Indigenous groups such as the Siraya and Hoanya. The Fengpitou site in , excavated in the mid-20th century, reveals layers from approximately 3000 BCE onward, including , polished stone tools, and remains of millet and cultivation, indicating settled farming communities adapted to coastal-plain environments. These findings align with the Tapenkeng culture, characterized by red-slipped ceramics and shell middens, suggesting early Austronesian-speaking populations that form the cultural continuum for later Plains peoples. Post-contact adaptations are evident in proto-historic and Dutch-era (1624–1662 CE) sites, where indigenous villages incorporated hybrid artifacts reflecting and technological exchange. Excavations at locations like Niumatou in northern have yielded deer bones, traditional alongside European glass beads and Chinese , pointing to with Dutch settlers while maintaining core subsistence patterns such as and millet farming. A notable shift appears in tool assemblages, transitioning from predominant stone adzes and ground-edge implements in pre-contact layers to iron knives and metal fittings in 17th-century strata, evidencing the adoption of imported for tasks like and without wholesale cultural replacement. However, the for Plains Indigenous continuity remains fragmentary due to extensive and agricultural development in the lowlands since the , which has obliterated or buried many potential sites under modern . Only a subset of proto-historic villages, often uncovered incidentally during construction, preserves intact , limiting comprehensive mapping of settlement patterns or long-term demographic shifts. Preservation efforts, such as those at coastal heritage zones, continue to prioritize these areas to reconstruct of amid external pressures.

Genetic Research Findings

Genetic studies from the 2000s to have revealed extensive admixture between Plains Indigenous peoples (also known as Pingpu or lowland tribes) and populations, particularly through paternal lineages. Analysis of Y-chromosome markers in plain tribes indicates that approximately 95% of lineages belong to , the predominant East Asian clade associated with expansions, contrasting with lower frequencies of Austronesian-specific subclades like O1a*-M119 or O1a1*-P203. Admixture estimates derived from haplotypes show a 62% contribution from Han sources and 79% lineage sharing with Taiwanese Han, far exceeding affinities with mountain Austronesian groups (TwMtA), where Han paternal input remains minimal. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) profiles further underscore southern Chinese influences, with Pingpu samples exhibiting high frequencies of haplogroups such as F (36.3%), M7c (15.2%), and other southern East Asian variants totaling around 64%, reflecting maternal from Neolithic-era populations in southern predating significant Han settlement. Genome-wide admixture models for lowland groups like the Makatao confirm a blended ancestry, with approximately 58% deriving from Minnan Han and 42% from highland Austronesian sources such as the Rukai, with recent admixture events dated to roughly 50 years ago based on GLOBETROTTER analysis. These patterns align with historical records of asymmetric intermarriage, where Han males integrated into Plains communities, diluting the original Austronesian genetic base. The cumulative evidence from Y-chromosome, mtDNA, and autosomal data indicates substantial biological continuity between self-identified Plains Indigenous peoples and the broader population, with Austronesian components often comprising less than half of the in modeled scenarios. This high degree of admixture challenges assertions of genetically distinct Plains indigeneity separate from , as paternal and overall ancestries overlap extensively with southern Chinese influxes since the . Such findings emphasize the role of demographic replacement and assimilation in shaping modern Plains genetic profiles, rather than preserved isolation.

Controversies and Debates

Authenticity of Indigenous Claims

The authenticity of claims to indigeneity by Plains Indigenous peoples in , also known as Pingpu groups, centers on empirical markers of cultural continuity, such as language retention, distinct territorial claims, and preservation of traditional practices, which have largely eroded due to historical assimilation. Unlike mountain tribes, whose geographic isolation preserved linguistic and customary elements despite pressures, Plains groups experienced rapid integration following Dutch and Qing-era contacts, leading to the of their by the early 20th century. For instance, the , once spoken by a major Plains tribe, ceased transmission after missionary documentation in the , with no fluent speakers remaining by 1940. This linguistic , coupled with the absence of reserved territories or unassimilated communities, supports arguments that Plains indigeneity has functionally terminated, rendering self-identification insufficient without verifiable ongoing distinctiveness. Proponents of Plains claims emphasize ancestral descent from pre-Han Austronesian populations, documented in historical records like Dutch ethnographies from the 1620s–1660s, which describe tribes such as the Hoanya and Babuza occupying western lowlands. However, this descent is complicated by voluntary intermarriage and cultural adoption of Han norms, including policies under Qing rule (1683–1895) that encouraged relocation and language shift, resulting in over 90% admixture rates in genetic surveys of self-identified Plains descendants. Critics, including some recognized mountain Indigenous leaders, contend that such integration—often adaptive rather than solely coercive—dilutes claims compared to mountain groups like the Amis or Paiwan, who maintain endangered but living languages (e.g., Amis spoken by ~20,000 in 2020) and animist rituals tied to specific highlands. International standards, such as those in the UN Declaration on the Rights of (2007), prioritize "historical continuity" with pre-invasion societies, a threshold Plains groups fail due to the causal break from assimilation-induced cultural loss. Debates intensify over thresholds for recognition, with empirical data favoring criteria like functional use or ethnographic continuity over mere . A 2022 constitutional review highlighted opposition from mountain tribes, arguing that Plains assimilation equates to ethnic dissolution, as evidenced by the lack of distinct systems or oral traditions post-1900. Revival efforts, such as reconstructing Siraya from 17th-century texts, have yielded limited success, with no community achieving intergenerational fluency, underscoring that post-extinction reconstruction does not restore original indigeneity. Thus, while genetic ties persist, the absence of living cultural markers positions Plains claims as historically valid but contemporarily attenuated relative to unassimilated peers.

Political Motivations and Identity Politics

The pursuit of official recognition for Plains Indigenous (Pingpu) identities in has been linked to access to benefits, including bonus points on university entrance exams, employment quotas in government positions, and reserved legislative seats. Indigenous students receive an average of 10-20 additional points on standardized tests, facilitating admission to competitive programs despite lower base scores, while central government offices in indigenous-designated regions must allocate at least 3% of positions to indigenous hires as of 2023 legislative proposals. These incentives mirror global patterns where marginalized group status yields preferential policies, akin to U.S. tribal recognitions enabling gaming revenues exceeding $39 billion annually in 2023, though Taiwan's framework emphasizes educational and political quotas over economic enterprises. Critics argue that Plains recognition campaigns often prioritize over cultural continuity, with efforts to revive extinct languages serving primarily as prerequisites for official status rather than organic preservation. Most Plains languages, such as Siraya and Hoanya, ceased intergenerational transmission by the due to , and contemporary revival initiatives—mandated for recognition under Taiwan's Indigenous Languages Development Act—yield negligible fluency rates, estimated below 1% among claimants given the absence of native speakers. This contrasts with mountain tribes where 35% overall indigenous fluency persists in select communities, highlighting Plains efforts as performative to secure quotas amid high intermarriage rates diluting distinct ethnic markers. From a historical perspective, Plains assimilation into Han during the Qing and Japanese eras represents adaptive integration rather than unmitigated cultural erasure, enabling socioeconomic mobility through intermarriage and urbanization that predated modern victim narratives. By the early , Plains populations had largely adopted Mandarin and Hoklo dialects, participating in Taiwan's without the isolation afflicting mountain groups, a process documented in colonial records showing voluntary for trade and security benefits. This realism challenges identity-driven reclamations that retroactively frame adaptation as perpetual loss, potentially inflating claims for policy privileges in a where indigenous poverty rates, at 25% unemployment or low-income for recognized groups, do not uniformly extend to urbanized Plains descendants.

Impacts on Broader Taiwanese Society

The passage of the Pingpu Indigenous People's Identity Act on October 18, 2025, enabling Plains Indigenous groups to apply for official recognition, has raised concerns about resource allocation pressures on Taiwan's public finances. Taiwan's officially recognized Indigenous population stands at approximately 2.4% of the total (around 570,000 out of 23.4 million people as of 2023), yet they access dedicated funding through the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP), including subsidies for education, health, and cultural preservation that represent higher per capita expenditures compared to the general population. Recent legislative actions, such as the opposition-led cuts to the CIP's 2025 budget—including freezes on up to 70% of operational expenses totaling over NT$500 million—highlight fiscal tensions, with critics arguing that expanded Plains recognition could further strain these resources by increasing eligible claimants potentially threefold, from current levels to over 1.7 million individuals. Such expansion risks diverting funds from broader societal needs, as evidenced by debates over Indigenous compensation consuming up to 40% of the CIP's annual budget. Recognition efforts also contribute to identity fragmentation within Taiwanese society, challenging the narrative of a unified multi-ethnic Taiwanese identity emergent from historical intermingling of Han settlers, Indigenous groups, and others. Plains Indigenous peoples, through centuries of including intermarriage and adoption of Han agricultural practices, have been integral to this fusion, yet formal recognition as distinct groups under the 2025 Act emphasizes separate ethnic statuses that some analysts contend undermines social cohesion by prioritizing subgroup assertions over shared national bonds. This dynamic echoes broader , where state-defined indigeneity—tied to legal benefits—can incentivize claims that dilute the collective "Taiwanese" ethos forged amid and economic integration since the 1990s. Historically, Plains Indigenous contributions have enriched broader Taiwanese society, particularly in and adaptive resilience. These groups pioneered millet and cultivation in Taiwan's fertile western plains dating to times, techniques that influenced subsequent Han farming expansions and supported under Dutch and Qing rule. In military contexts, Plains tribes leveraged alliances with colonizers, providing auxiliary forces that aided in territorial stabilization, such as during early Qing defenses where their local knowledge and combat utility preserved limited land rights into the 1700s. These integrations demonstrate causal benefits from assimilation, contrasting with recognition-driven that may overlook such fused legacies in favor of retroactive distinctiveness.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.