In 1871, a ship from the Miyako Islands of the Ryukyu Kingdom, modern-day Okinawa, encountered a severe typhoon on its return from a tributary trip to the kingdom’s capital, Shuri, and ran aground on the eastern side of the Hengchun Peninsula at the southernmost tip of Taiwan.
Three crewmen drowned in the shipwreck, but 66 survivors made it ashore and stumbled into the territory of the aboriginal Paiwan in today’s Mudan Village, Pingtung County. Although initial contact was peaceful, in the end 54 of the Okinawans were beheaded. On the basis of this episode, along with similar subsequent events, Japan deployed troops to Taiwan and invaded Paiwan settlements in 1874.
The invasion, historically known as the Mudan Incident in Taiwan, and the Taiwan Expedition of 1874 in Japan, marked the first overseas deployment of the imperial Japanese army and navy.
Historians believe the expedition marked the beginning of the new Japanese empire’s attempts to weaken Chinese sovereignty in East Asia while deflecting domestic issues. It led to a Sino-Japanese agreement in which Japanese sovereignty over the Ryukyu Islands, which had formerly paid tribute to China, was legitimized.
Following the agreement, the Qing court started to proactively manage Taiwan, finally realizing its strategic importance. It also began to develop the eastern and mountainous regions of the island, which were mainly aboriginal territories, after its claim that aborigines were “uncivilized people on the outer fringes of civilization” had been used by Japan as justification for deploying troops to Taiwan in a punitive expedition on behalf of the Miyako islanders.
At a symposium Nov. 26, scholars from Taiwan and Okinawa revisited this history, paying special attention to the aboriginals’ beheading of the Ryukyuans, which has often been seen as merely incidental to later geopolitical developments.
“Its consequences have been grave for the people of the Ryukyus and Taiwan aboriginals, but relatively little attention has been given to it, especially from the perspectives of the victims,” said Yang Meng-che, an associate professor at National Taipei University of Education.
Yang, a specialist in Taiwan and Okinawa cultures, said the incident elevated Japan into the lineup of international colonial powers, as the previously isolated nation gradually brought the Ryukyu Kingdom, Taiwan, the Korean peninsula and historic Manchuria under its control in the following decades.
Along with colonial power, Japan gained dominance over historical discourse on the episode. “In history written by Japan as colonizer, neither Okinawa nor Taiwan’s indigenous peoples, who have no written language, have a voice,” Yang said.
Seikiyo Matayoshi, professor of East Asian studies at Okinawa University, who began field research on the 1871 incident in the 1970s, said his studies were nowhere near completion, “due to the inadequate attention given by both the Japanese and Taiwanese governments to the affair.”
Matayoshi went on to say the lack of attention had to do with the suppression of Taiwan aboriginals and the Ryukyu regime by Japan in the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as Taiwan’s failure to examine its colonial past.
But both scholars’ dedication to recovering truths from the perspective of the victims has recently been boosted by rising awareness among the descendants of those involved in the incident.
In their eyes, the story of the beheading offered by the historic rulers over Taiwan—Japanese or Chinese—does not do justice to the aborigines.
“For a very long time I was afraid of admitting I’m from Mudan, and thus a descendant of ‘the bloodthirsty barbarian tribe,’” said 39-year-old Lianes Punanang of the Paiwan Kusukut subgroup.
“Reading descriptions of the incident made me really indignant, because I know from my immersion in aboriginal culture that events would not have happened in that way,” she said.
While in graduate school, encouraged by her advisor, Lianes Punanang began to dig into the victimization of the Ryukyu people and the role of her tribal ancestors. Field studies in her home village convinced her that cultural shock on both sides, miscommunication and attempts at self-defense were at the root of the violence that occurred.
“The true cause of the headhunting in this case was mutual misunderstanding, rather than a propensity for killing,” said Valjeluk Mavalju, local historian and former head of Mudan Township, whose ancestors helped defend Mudan against the Japanese invasion.
According to Valjeluk Mavalju, the Ryukyu tributary boat ran aground off Bayao Bay in today’s Manzhou Township in December 1871, and the survivors, making their way westwards in search of help, blundered into the Kusukut settlement the day after the shipwreck. The natives, outnumbered by the intruders and stunned by their sudden appearance, nevertheless saw the unarmed men as guests and provided them with food, water and shelter.
The next day, however, possibly frightened by the unfamiliar circumstances, the shipwreck survivors stealthily left the village in separate groups while the Kusukut men were out hunting. Village women soon alerted the men to their departure, which to the aborigines was inexplicable.
“In Paiwan tribal tradition, drinking water offered by a stranger means agreeing to peaceful engagement between equals. But the abrupt disappearance breached that agreement, turning guests into enemies,” Valjeluk Mavalju said.
The Kusukut teamed up with members from the Botan settlement in hunting down the Ryukyuans, killing most of them.
Documents from the period say Han Chinese settlers intervened and rescued 12, sheltering them for 40 days while the Qing administration arranged for them to be sent home via Xiamen in mainland China. These settlers also buried the dead in a nearby field.
Claiming to be seeking reparations, Japan sent a contingent of 3,600 soldiers to the aboriginal territory in May 1874. In a seven-month offensive, they faced fierce resistance from around 200 Kusukut and Botan warriors, eventually burning their villages and killing several adults, including Botan chieftan Alok and his son.
“On the whole, both my people and our Miyako counterparts were victims,” Lianes Punanang said. “But the sad thing is that their descendants have had to wait for 140 years to be able to talk about what reportedly happened.”
Mutual visits between Mudan villagers and descendants of the Miyako victims began in 2004, stimulated by studies carried out in Okinawa and Taiwan over many years. This year, Yang and Matayoshi helped arranged a memorial event Nov. 25 in Mudan’s Tongpu Village, where the bodies of the 54 sailors were reburied.
The memorial, along with the symposium, represented the culmination of such exchanges, participants said.
Invited to Taiwan for the event, Koei Nohara, whose forefather was among the crewmembers who died, said his feelings were complicated as he attended the event and shared memories.
“My forefather was 31, and in his prime, when he had the great honor of joining the elite of Miyako on board the tributary ship, but it ended with mortal tragedy.”
The tragedy was never forgotten, Nohara said, but his family had not been able to learn more about it until Matayoshi contacted his father and the families of other victims in the course of his research.
Family members were perplexed by the killing, while unaware of the similarly tragic implications for Taiwan’s aborigines, he said.
Matayoshi described the memorial ceremony as a way of comforting descendents of both groups of victims. “It is hoped their suffering will thus be relieved.”
While the ceremony was marked by harmony and reconciliation, efforts to allow the victims to speak for themselves and rediscover the truth must continue, organizers said.
In retrospect, Nohara said, the consequences of the incident remind him of Okinawa’s history under Japan, with severe discrimination and the assimilation of its unique culture. “Textbooks descriptions of the incident are still the simplistic, prewar version, and there is no contemporary interpretation.”
In Taiwan, academics have been examining historic artifacts, documents and textbooks to present a more accurate record of history. As Yang said, “This chapter needs to be rewritten from the perspective of Taiwan aboriginals, to do justice to those who suffered from ensuing political developments.”
As an example, he added, the inscription on the tombstone set up by Japan in 1872 in the cemetery contains anachronistic errors and a Japanese-centered view. “Such errors, resulting from ignorance of the actual history, must be corrected or explained.”
Other scholars suggested that research be dedicated to setting up a museum on the incident, which could be integrated with other historic, cultural and tourist resources in the area.
In November, Taiwan’s Control Yuan completed the first-ever official investigation of the related events from 1871 to 1874, requesting that government agencies act in the directions suggested by researchers.
Control Yuan Member Huang Huang-hsiung, who spearheaded the report, said the incident is an overture to Taiwan’s colonial era that has influenced generations of people on the island. “Present history books represent this period largely from the perspective of the Japanese, whose views were carried on by the postwar government in Taiwan in its disregard for indigenous culture.”
Huang said he would help create a platform where civilians and experts from both Taiwan and Okinawa can exchange their views and research.
“Let’s work toward peace, justice and reconciliation—while remembering that these are not possible without dialogue in the truth-finding process.” (THN)
Write to June Tsai at june@mail.gio.gov.tw