巧遇的接力：歐洲與東亞間的民族誌知識收集、整理、再相遇

Abstract

現代民族誌學（ethnography）的前身，可以追溯到十八世紀中葉的「族群描述」（Völker-Beschreibung），這是德意志學者G. F. Müller在西伯利亞進行田野調查時所發展，用來描述人類文化的方法論。此一方法論的原型，可以再往前追溯到十六、十七世紀流行的「旅行的技巧」（ars apodemica）。歐洲旅行者在這些方法的指導下，收集了許多有關東亞族群、歷史、地理、文化的知識。若將知識收集視為一個貫穿時代的現象，會發現不同時代的行動者以不同的目標和方法進行知識收集，其中並未有特別的計畫。這樣的特性使這個橫跨四世紀的知識收集，看起來就像一場「巧遇的接力」。我將歐洲與東亞間的知識收集、整理、再相遇分為三個部分討論。在收集與驗證的十六與十七世紀，西歐與東亞建立了直接的連結，知識也開始在此連結上流動。在這一部分我檢視了《臺灣府志》中所流傳的「暗洋暗澳傳說」，發現它與1596年到1597年間荷蘭航海家Willem Barents的第三次北極探險遇難過程相對應。我也透過東北航路的情報在日本流傳的情況，側寫當時歐洲人深信的東北航路及「Anian海峽」等地理知識流傳到亞洲的情境，以重建「暗洋暗澳傳說」被記錄時的情境。到了1643年，荷蘭人在亞洲站穩腳步，下一步他們就開始規劃探索東北亞大國Cathay與太平洋上金銀島的探險。這次依循過時資訊規畫的航海，雖然從一開始就註定失敗，卻因為組員克盡觀察情報的職責，本次航海帶回北海道、庫頁島、千島群島一帶的地理與民族誌情報，無意中成為記錄十七世紀中葉的阿伊努社會的重要見證。十七世紀中葉以後，從東亞已經有大量情報傳回歐洲，在歐洲的學者開始對這些情報進行整理與批判。Nicolaas Witsen與François Valentyn兩人都是運用荷蘭東印度公司的知識網絡為自己的作品收集資料的編輯者，分析他們對手上情報所做的改動，可以揭露這兩位編輯者所追求的目標。Witsen關心的是他的Tartaria地圖，用各種資料為其地圖佐證。Valentyn則在編輯中豪放地帶入個人意見，不只大幅縮節改寫C. E. S.和Candidius的原始史料，並在他所投入的宗教領域加入帶有個人偏見的批評，但也缺乏對情報的批判考證。不重視考證的知識收集，在十八世紀初George Psalmanazar假扮福爾摩沙人的騙局中受到了強烈的挑戰，使歐洲知識界必須重新反省既有的知識收集模式。在十八世紀興起的學術遠征（scientific expedition）則挽救了知識的危機，並從中發展出研究全人類文化的框架。到了十九世紀，歐洲的民族誌學再次與東亞的地方知識再次相遇。但是再相遇並不一定是學術的進步。我以德意志傳教士歐德理所提出的客家民族誌、客家族群史，以及十九世紀末臺灣研究中產生的「客家先來論」，說明新的迷思如何在西方知識與在地知識的再相遇中產生。綜觀來看，從十六世紀到十九世紀的民族誌學歷史似乎充滿了失敗，但是知識行動者之間的接力，卻也讓民族誌學知識往正面方向改變。我們必須認識到這場「巧遇的接力」，才能公平地去評價當代的知識體系，知道自己是怎麼形成。Modern ethnography may find its direct root in Völker-Beschreibung, a universal framework used to describe human culture. Völker-Beschreibung can also trace its prototype to ars apodemica, which is a popular set of instructions telling travelers how and what to observe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These methodologies guided European travelers to collect abundant knowledge of ethnography, history, and geography when travelling abroad. However, knowledge collection was like an unintended relay, in which knowledge collectors pursued various objectives and lacked any coordinated plans. Focusing on the cultural encounters between Europe and East Asia, this study treats knowledge collection between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries as a longitudinal phenomenon: a relay across four centuries. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are characterized by collection and verification of knowledge. I examine the story of Anian, recorded in Taiwan, and find its origin in Dutch navigator Willem Barents’s third polar exploration. The myth of the Anian Strait, the polar detour to access Asia, was also related to the geographical knowledge of northeast Asia, where the country of Cathay was believed to be situated. In 1643, the Dutch East India Company (VOC) sent ships to explore Cathay and the gold- and silver-rich islands in the Pacific Ocean. Based on outdated information, the exploration failed in the beginning. However, the crew’s careful observation of the Ainu in today’s Hokkaido, Sakhalin, and Kuril Islands unintentionally provided a faithful witness to the Ainu culture in the mid-seventeenth century. European scholars began to organize foreign knowledge when it reached a significant amount. Witsen and Valentyn are famous organizers of the information collected by VOC. An examination of their works reveals their distinct editorial styles. Witsen is a bad organizer, but he is faithful to his material. Valentyn is a better organizer, but he distorts material to deliver his chauvinistic opinion. Despite of their distinct styles, both preferred to collect abundant information, but lacked interest in criticism and verification. This attitude prevailed in their time but was strongly challenged by George Psalmanazar, a pretended Formosan who created a false ethnography of Formosa. The Psalmanazar hoax forced European scholars to find a reliable model of knowledge collection. Scientific expedition since the mid-eighteenth century was the solution. It not only averted the crisis of reliability but also nurtured Völker-Beschreibung in Siberia in the mid-eighteenth century, and it was further developed into ethnography in the following decades. The re-encounter of Europe and East Asia took place in the nineteenth century, but it did not warrant scientific advancement. I examine German missionary Eitel’s Hakka ethnography, and the strange theories of Hakka immigration to Taiwan to address the creation of new myths in the re-encounters. The cases examined in my study seem to be a chain of failures. However, I also argue that it is the relay that results in the advancement of knowledge. We can only understand what forms our contemporary knowledge system if we successfully acknowledge the unintended relay of knowledge collectors.