Talk:Prehistory of Taiwan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Prehistory of Taiwan is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Taiwan may be able to help! |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
[edit] Removed text
I've removed the following text, which seems quite problematic as it stands:
It has been proven that the Neolithic prehistoric sites was left by the Austronesian people. In other words, before the Taiwanese aborigines settled Taiwan, there might have been other people who settled before them.
There were many kinds of Taiwanese aborigines, which can be sorted into two main groups: the Gaoshan (高山族) and the Pepo (平埔族). The Gaoshan people lived in mountainous areas, their culture can still be distinguished from the Han Chinese. On the other hand, the Pepo culture has been gradually disappearing due to the invasion and culture assimilation of the Han Chinese. However, there are a lot of places, names, religions, songs, etc., that are still historic relics of the Pepo culture.
Firstly, since the Formosan languages of the Taiwanese Aborigines form all but one branch of the Austronesian languages, the first part makes no sense at all- they are decidedly Austronesian, and it's widely held that the Austronesian langs. emanated from the island of Formosa in the first place. Perhaps it is supposed to refer to some non-Austronesian earlier occupation- but without any references it's impossible to tell. Secondly, suggesting that physical neolithic remains can be 'proven' as attributable to a group that is defined on linguistic grounds is a bit misleading.
The second para seems out-of-place for the 'prehistorical' scope of the article: it's really discussing the indigenous peoples as known from much more contemporary, (recorded) historical times. Also, the various subdivisions of these peoples as distinct and named groups is generally a more recent construct.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I just translated it from the Chinese version.--Jerrypp772000 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WPCHINA?
I brought this up at wpchina's talkpage once, and they said it was fine not to include this article as part of them. I personally think that this article should not be part of the project because, even if you think Taiwan is part of China (which I strongly disagree), at the time Taiwan was not part of China yet. There were no Han Chinese or any ethnic Chinese people in Taiwan.--Jerry 17:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- depends on how you think. PRC categorizes the aborigines as part of its 56 Chinese nationalities. Blueshirts 17:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I understand, but I think this will be more neutral. I mean, PRC even claims Taiwan as its province.--Jerry 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
