清代漢人移民在蒙古與臺灣邊疆的本土化比較研究

A Comparative Study of Nativization of Han Chinese Settlers on Qing Mongolian and Taiwan Frontiers

自十七世紀初起，清朝先後向內亞與海洋擴張。由於內地人口增長迅速，領土的擴大與內地沉重的人口壓力兩者為漢人移民邊疆創造了有利條件。在這個過程中，不同邊疆地區都出現了漢人移民本土化的現象。一般而言，本土化指的是一個群體移入新環境後，受原住民影響而改變其文化與身份認同的情形。本研究主要關注移民在文化上的涵化、通婚、認同同化與社會法律身分的同化。然而，這對於企圖維持邊疆封禁與族群隔離的清廷而言，構成了挑戰。本文聚焦於清朝蒙古與臺灣邊疆的漢人移民，運用蒙、漢文檔案材料，綜合中、英、日、蒙文研究成果來探討這個主題。首先，梳理清廷對屬民身份地位的規定以及對內亞與海疆等不同地區的封禁政策，並探討漢人移民本土化形態的差異，以及清廷對於不同邊疆移民本土化的處理舉措。本文主張清代漢人移民在內亞與海洋邊疆所面對的陌生環境、文化與人群雖然不盡相同，但其適應策略仍有相似之處。清朝在邊疆地區所實行的封禁政策則是移民本土化得以存在的背景。而不同邊疆的漢人移民移民本土化的差異主要反映在同化的管道、系統性與程度差異之上。其主要決定因素繫於清朝對不同邊疆之本土文化與制度的尊重程度高低與地方菁英的自治權力大小之上。

Beginning in the early seventeenth century, the Qing Empire gradually expanded its territories toward Inner Asia and its maritime frontiers. This expansionism and the pressure of rapid population growth within Qing China proper created favorable conditions for Han Chinese immigration into the frontier regions, giving rise to different forms of settler nativization dependent on the region. The term“nativization”as coined in the present article means the phenomenon of a settler acquiring the identity of the native peoples in the ethno-cultural, institutional, and legal sense. But for the Qing court, settler nativization led to challenges in maintaining its prohibition policies in the borderlands and segregation policy toward its multi-ethnic subjects. Drawing on Mongolian and Chinese sources, this article explores the nativization of Han settlers on the Qing Mongolian and Taiwan frontiers, discussing the differences in the modes of nativization as well as the reaction of the Qing court. This article argues that the Han Chinese settlers utilized similar adaption strategies despite facing different environments, cultures, and peoples on the two frontiers, with the prohibition policies also playing a significant role in settler nativization. The differences in the channels, frequency, and degrees of nativization largely depended on two factors: (1) the level of Qing respect for the native cultures and institutions and (2) the level of autonomy of local elites.