在現今學界對平埔族的分類中，居住在嘉義和雲林一帶的原住民往往被歸類為「Hoanya」（洪雅或和安雅）族。但本文透過文獻考證的方法，發現「Hoanya」之名遲至1930年代才出現。當時語言學家小川尚義透過伊能嘉矩的未刊手稿，提出「Hoanya」這個名稱。不過伊能嘉矩手稿中，g往往寫得像y，此一個人特色導致閱讀手稿的讀者，或是排版印刷的工人，誤將伊能的g讀作y。因此，本文主張「Hoanya」應為對伊能手稿中Hoanga的誤讀，無意間發明了一個在歷史上不曾出現的族群名稱。如果「Hoanya」確實是近代的發明，那我們就必須追問，在荷蘭與清朝統治時期，這些原住民又是如何被外人所分類。本文發現，從荷蘭到清朝統治時期，外人對臺灣原住民的分類有其一貫性，他們基於原住民的語言和區域性的互動來分類原住民。基於對荷蘭與清代史料的仔細閱讀，本文主張這些原住民社群，即使語言不同，但自古以來即存在互動關係。本文欲提醒，我們不應該受到專家所定義的族群邊界所限制，低估原住民互相交流的能動性。最重要的是，我們必須基於對史料的精細閱讀，才能夠準確地重建原住民族的歷史。

In the contemporary ethnic classification of the indigenous peoples in Taiwan, the Plain Indigenous peoples in today’s Chiayi and Yunlin are categorized as “Hoanya.” However, this ethnic name did not appear until the 1930s and was proposed by Japanese linguist Ogawa Naoyoshi with reference to an unpublished manuscript of early anthropologist Inō Kanori. As seen in his handwriting, Inō wrote g like y; hence, transcribers or compositors might have misread Inō’s Hoanga as Hoanya and by chance invented this ethnic name. If Hoanya is merely an unintentional invention, one must further ask how the indigenous peoples were classified under Dutch and Qing rule. This study found that both Dutch and Qing classification systems agree with each other, showing consistency in the ethnic names used from the seventeenth to the eighteenth century. These systems classified indigenous peoples not only according to their languages but also the interactions between ethnic groups. On the basis of Dutch and Qing records, this study further argued that indigenous peoples had long been engaged in interactions despite language differences. Hence, caution should be taken not to confine their interactions by linguistic and other boundaries defined by later anthropologists or scholars. It is essential to delve into historical sources to reconstruct the history of the indigenous peoples.

虎尾;打猫;哆囉嘓;諸羅山;大武壠;西拉雅

Favorlang; Davoha; Dorko; Tirosen; Taivoan; Siraya