The origin of Taiwanese

In the past few years, media reports on the origin of the Taiwanese have appeared with headlines such as "85% of Taiwanese are the descendants of the Aborigines", "Taiwanese are not Chinese", etc. Reporters in Taiwan tend to sensationalize issues using mis-interpreted information, so these are not quite that surprising. To avoid confusion, the abstract in English and a summary in Chinese of the original paper published in 2001, written by Dr Lin Ma-li herself, are both quoted below, so readers can get the first-hand info and form their own opinion [note: red highlights are added for clarity].

A quick summation first. Lin's paper essentially states that

(1) based on one tissue antigen marker, both the Hoklo and the Hakka appear to descend from the Yue Tribe (the Southern Savages);
(2) based on the white cell antigen study, 13% of "Taiwanese" share one marker with the Aborigines, not as high as imagined, and impossible to verify since past Pinpuhuan tribes are now hard to find;
(3) the Northern Han were the pure Han; the ancestors of Taiwanese were not, they had self-assimilated into the Han to gain survival advantages; and
(4) the Southern Han with 3 subgroups were different from the Northerners; how close the modern Taiwanese are to the Southern-Han remains to be investigated.

There was never any mention of "Taiwanese were not Chinese" anywhere.

The original abstract is here:

"The Minnan and Hakka people groups, the so-called “Taiwanese”, are the descendants of early settlers from the southeast coast of China during the last few centuries. Genetically they showed affinities to southern Asian populations, as determined by phylogenetic trees and correspondence analysis calculated from HLA allele frequencies. This corresponds historically with the fact that they are the descendants of the southeast coastal indigenous population (Yueh) of China and should therefore not be considered as descendants of “pure” northern Han Chinese. A33-B58-DRB1*03 (A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02), the most common HLA haplotype among “Taiwanese”, with a haplotype frequency of 6.3%, has also been found to be the most common haplotype among Thai-Chinese and Singapore Chinese, two other populations also originating from the southeast coast of China. These observations suggests that this haplotype is the most well-conserved ancient haplotype of the Yueh."

And the article in Chinese:

從組織抗原推論閩南人及客家人所謂"台灣人"的來源

林媽利

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)，最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-DRE1*03(即A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1"03-DQB1*02)是台灣人最常見的組織抗原(HIO"-A)半套體，頻率為六‧三％，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，祖先是近四○○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」十三％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即在消失中的「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。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」應該算是北方中原和人的純種後代，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。

討 論

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，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，從最近挖掘出來的栗米(millets)可以追溯到公元前六到七千年之久。中原文化在夏、商、周時期是在長江以北，直到秦朝(公元前二二一 ~ 二○六年)後政治的勢力才及於中國大陸的中南方。最近的考古研究發現在中國大陸南方，再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。但是南方的歷史只從公元前五○○年左右吳越相爭之前才開始有的，越王勾踐的「臥薪嚐膽」富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即在漢朝時期部份越族的北移外，在中國的歷史(及中原文化的歷史)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」。閩人及台灣閩南人的祖先是居住在福建的越族，根據林惠祥及Meacham的研究，今日的閩人是東南沿海地區原住民「越族」的後代，雖然在秦朝即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，有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」，導致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。在客家人的情形也是相似，在南宋(一一二七 ~ 一二七九ＡＤ)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週遭的原住民，特別是住在廣東的越族，所以早期的少數中原移民加上眾多的越族而成客家族群。

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，然後在和泰國華人、新加坡華人合併成一枝，而這些族群都是起源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。慈濟骨髓登陸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。其他許多ＨＬＡ的研究，及別的基因漢遺傳標誌，像免疫球蛋白、血型、葡萄糖六磷酸去氫酵素及染色體ＤＮＡ微衛星等，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，在該項研究中南方漢人再被分為三群，及長江下游以上海為中心的一群、長江流域的一群集另一群屬於越族的東南沿海地區及島嶼(包括台灣)的居民。中國人的姓氏約有四○○○尼的歷史而且是由男性承傳，所以可以認為代表Ｙ染色體的遺傳，該研究更藉著中國的二十八省加上台灣以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(及越族)與其他地區的居民分開。

以上資料顯示南方漢人是源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-DQB01*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。

(本文為摘要，全文刊登於Tissue Antigens 57(3), 192-199, 2001)

In addition, the frequently cited 85% [of Taiwanese are descendants of the Aborigines] value seems to have come from an article attributed to Dr Lin (published in The Liberty Times, 8/11/2007):

"...在一百人當中只有三十三人的父母系血緣全部來自亞洲大陸，其他六十七人的父母系血緣是混合了台灣原住民、東南亞島嶼族群及亞洲大陸的血緣。分析這三十三人的組織抗原半套型的來源，看到十八人帶有台灣原住民的基因，十人帶有中國東南沿海越族特徵的基因，二個西南亞洲基因及各一個北方漢人、藏人及歐洲人的基因，所以根據三個系統的分析，八十五％的台灣人是帶有台灣原住民的血緣，所以是平埔公、平埔嬤、唐山公、唐山嬤，還有高山公、高山嬤及少數外國基因一起建構了非原住民台灣人的基因。"
Among the 100 volunteers, 67 have a "blood relation" with the Aborigines, SE Asian Islands people, and Asian continent groups. Of the other 33, 18 carry an Aboriginal gene, 10 have the Yue characteristic, and the rest, a mixed bag.

In a post published on 8/27/2008, Dr Lin re-stated her findings:

"...我們把100人的父母系血緣的結果放在一起評估，發現有67人的父母系血緣或兩個血緣中的一個血緣是來自原住民或東南亞島嶼族群，剩下33人的父母系血緣則全來自亞洲大陸，然而我們在這33人的組織抗原分析當中發現18人帶有很可能來自原住民的血緣，因此從三個基因系統(母系血緣、父系血緣、組織抗原)，有 67人+18人=85人，也就是約85%的台灣人帶有原住民及或東南亞島嶼族群的基因..."

So, based on bloodline analysis, 67 are found to have markers from the "Aborigines or SE Asian islanders [and the Asian continent component now omitted for some reason] on either the maternal or the paternal, or both sides. The other 33 all have bloodline markers from the Asian continent; although 18 are with possibly an Aboriginal tissue antigen marker. Combining all three markers, then you end up with (67+18)/100 = 85% [without taking mutual-exclusivity into account, however]. It was more speculative than conclusive at least as far as the tissue antigen. And it was a combined "原住民及或[and/or]東南亞島嶼族群的基因" implying the Aborigines in Taiwan share a common genetic marker with the SE Asian islanders. In this sense, the claim of "85% of the Taiwanese descended from the SE Asian islanders" would be equally valid, migratory history notwithstanding.

Since all discoveries in science must withstand the time-test, Lin's study can be regarded as a theory based on some preliminary data. The protein-coding genes alone consist of as many as 30,000. Three markers are not nearly enough. It also should be noted that Lin's serological study was based on blood samples from 100 donors and the tissue antigen study from fewer than 250 volunteers. The participants were non-randomized self-proclaimed non-aboriginal Taiwanese. Extrapolation of the findings to the entire population therefore must be exercised with extreme caution.

The rebuttals often emphasize that Han is not a race but a culture and, Lin herself also concurs, that Taiwanese are whoever regard Taiwan as their homeland.

Let's just say the verdict is still out as far as the origin of the Taiwanese. For an important issue such as this, the scientific evidence must be irrefutable. We therefore advocate a nation-wide (not a small sample) mitochondrial DNA study.