臺灣最早的漢人祖籍別與族群分布：1901年「關於本島發達之沿革調查」統計資料的圖像化
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2013-11-??
Authors
許世融
Shih-Rong Hsu
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
地理學系
Department of Geography, NTNU
Department of Geography, NTNU
Abstract
1900 年底，總督府曾要求全島各地方政府進行一項「關於本島發達之沿革調查」，它是除了「臺灣在籍漢民族鄉貫別調查」之外，唯一針對臺灣族群與漢人祖籍的普查記錄，且調查時間更接近清末的狀況，重要性不言可喻。本文的目的，在嚐試結合傳統的史料整理考訂工作與當代的地理資訊系統技術，將此一歷史統計資料，繪製成一張1901 年「臺灣全島優勢祖籍族群分布圖」（以下簡稱「沿革調查圖」），並據以探究其與1926 年「臺灣在籍漢民族鄉貫別分布圖」（以下簡稱「鄉貫別分布圖」）彼此間的特點與限制所在。本文首先進行新舊街庄「接軌」、現有圖層修整，族群人口比例換算，接著藉由GIS 協助，繪製出「沿革調查圖」。其後將此圖與「鄉貫別分布圖」進行比較發現：在調查時間方面，沿革調查圖反應了清末到日治初期的祖籍族群狀況，鄉貫別分布圖則呈現日本穩固統治之後的情形；就調查對象而言，沿革調查圖面向較廣，而鄉貫分布圖則在祖籍分類較明確；就調查層級及統計數字而言，沿革調查圖可以表現出比鄉貫別分布圖更為細緻的分布情形，不過在處理的程序上更為複雜；最後就優勢族群認定來看，沿革調查圖採取絕對優勢，可大幅降低鄉貫別分布圖採取相對優勢造成的誤解，但會多出部分難以區別的混合地帶。整體而言，由於本研究採用現代的GIS 製圖方式，沿革調查圖不論是在行政區域劃分或圖資色彩區別上，都比鄉貫別分布圖來得精準，可對後者產生不小的補強作用。
The Taiwan Sotokufu conducted relative investigations of Formosa development and history in the December of 1900. However, the findings of this study were not presented for publics. Consequently, most scholars do not know its values and academic contributions. Based on the findings of this study, the author makes graphics, named as “Distribution Graphics of Formosa Majority Ancestral Places (Graphic of History Investigation, GHI),” with the combination of using traditional historical methodology and current techniques of Geographic Information System (GIS). Additionally, the author discovers the characteristics and limitations between the GHI and the Distribution Graphics of Census Registered Han People Township Penetration Categories in Taiwan, named as Distribution Graphics of Township Penetration (DGTP).Through a comparison of the GHI and the DGTP, the author found: (1) according to the time of investigation, the GHI presents the condition of ancestral place groups' distribution of the end of the 19th century; however, the DGTP presents the condition of 1920s. (2) For the samples of the study, the GHI includes multiple dimensions of information, but the DGTP has precise classifications of ancestral places. (3) Regarding to the levels of investigation and statistic data, the GHI is more meticulous than the DGTP; however, the GHI has more complicated procedures. (4) For the classified superiority groups, the GHI utilizes absolute superiority so that it increasingly declines misunderstandings generated by the DGTP that utilizes comparative superiority. Therefore, the GHI can clarify several fuzzy and mixed areas generated by the DGTP. Overall, due to the use of current GIS to make graphics, the author concludes that the GHI is more accurate and appropriate than the DGTP either in dividing the administrative areas or differentiating mapping data colors. Moreover, the GHI much strengthens the DGTP for future studies.
The Taiwan Sotokufu conducted relative investigations of Formosa development and history in the December of 1900. However, the findings of this study were not presented for publics. Consequently, most scholars do not know its values and academic contributions. Based on the findings of this study, the author makes graphics, named as “Distribution Graphics of Formosa Majority Ancestral Places (Graphic of History Investigation, GHI),” with the combination of using traditional historical methodology and current techniques of Geographic Information System (GIS). Additionally, the author discovers the characteristics and limitations between the GHI and the Distribution Graphics of Census Registered Han People Township Penetration Categories in Taiwan, named as Distribution Graphics of Township Penetration (DGTP).Through a comparison of the GHI and the DGTP, the author found: (1) according to the time of investigation, the GHI presents the condition of ancestral place groups' distribution of the end of the 19th century; however, the DGTP presents the condition of 1920s. (2) For the samples of the study, the GHI includes multiple dimensions of information, but the DGTP has precise classifications of ancestral places. (3) Regarding to the levels of investigation and statistic data, the GHI is more meticulous than the DGTP; however, the GHI has more complicated procedures. (4) For the classified superiority groups, the GHI utilizes absolute superiority so that it increasingly declines misunderstandings generated by the DGTP that utilizes comparative superiority. Therefore, the GHI can clarify several fuzzy and mixed areas generated by the DGTP. Overall, due to the use of current GIS to make graphics, the author concludes that the GHI is more accurate and appropriate than the DGTP either in dividing the administrative areas or differentiating mapping data colors. Moreover, the GHI much strengthens the DGTP for future studies.